Order :

This Gvil Revision Petition arises out of Order darcd 24'10'2A9, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet in I.ANo.244 of 2018 in M.V.O.P.No.78 of 2017, whereby the petitioners' requesr ro enhance his claim of compensation from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs was declined.

2. On 27.09.2Q16, petitioner was proceeding on his bike bearing registr:rtion No. TS 04 EK 3226 from Khammam to Kusumanchi and when he reached near Vaanha office at about 8.00 p.m., an auto bearing registration No. AP 20 TC 6188, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negLigent numner, dashed his bile in opposite direction, due to which he fell down and his right leg got fractured at upper knee' Immediately, he was shifted to P.N.V.S.V. Prasad Onhopedic Hospital, where he got ffeatment dll 07.71.2016. After recovery 2.e., during l\/l^rch, 20L7, he filed M.V.O.P.No.78 of 2017 a toml comPensation of Rs.2 lakhs. One lear thereafter, *ffit i.e., or23.03.2018, the pedtioner filed the above IA seeking amendment of the claim petition regarding enhancement of the claim of compensation from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.1O lakhs, which was dismissed. Hence, the Present revision Petruon.

l. At the hearing, leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the claim pedtion, the peritioner obtained disability cenificate issued by the Medical Board, Govemment Flead Qraners Hospital, Khammam,

I I

which shows rhat he suffered 68o/o of disability. FIe funher submits thar due to the said disabiliry, the eaming capaciry of the Petitioner got reduced; that he spenr huge arnounr rowards medicai rreaunenr; that the c-ourt below erred in dismissing the lA without properly appreciating the fects and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner is ready to pay the excess coult fee also' Leamed counsel for the petitioner is, however, unable to starc as to whether trial has commenced in the claim petition or not'

4. Though sewed, none aPPears for the respondents'

5. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the lower court dismissed the IA on two grounds; fintly, that the IA is silent as to under what heads the petitioner seeks enhancement of claim of comPensation; 'recondly' that if the amendment is allowed, respondent No'2 has to pay interest on the amount proposed to be enhanced without any fault on his pan'

6. Order M Rule 12 CP'C, provides foramendmentof the pleadings befort commencement of the trial, The petidoner wanted enhancement of the original claim of Rs.2 lakhs to fu'10 lakhs on the ground that the percentage of permanent disability to the extent of 68o/o was known after filing of the claim perition. It is evident from the order under revision that the IA was filed before commencement of trial' In view of the same' the impugned or,der is set aside. It is needless to observe that if the evidence of claimana had already been concluded, dre claimants are not entitled to this relief.

7 The Gvil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of'

As a sequel, miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand disposed of intnrctuous. ,1S LAKSHMI sD/- L NAGA I REGISTRAR ASSISTANT I //TRUE COPY// \:/

SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The ll Additional District Judge' Nalgonda at Suryapet'

2. One CC to Sri Bommagani Prabhakar' Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies 4. One SPare CoPY gbr HIGH COURT DATED: 1310912021 E 14 oi ,). J a z r-) 21 0Ur202l o -t

1!

t ORDER of 2019 CRP.No.3044 DISPOSING OF THE CRP 'rt\

to