By way of this application, the applicant has made following prayers:-
"A. Your lordship may be allow and admit this application and be pleased to grant the amendment as praposed in pera 6 of this application.
B. Your lordship may be pleased to allow the applicant to amend the appeal memo of F.A. No.5284/95 according, if became necessary to do so.
C. Cost of this application be awarded.
D. Any other just and proper relief be granted in the interest of justice."
The learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors reported in 2003(1) GLH 225 and more particularly on Paragraph No.21, which is quoted as under:-
"21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the M.V.Act, there is no restriction that tribunal/ court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the tribunal/ court is to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-Section (4) of Section 166, even report submitted to the claims tribunal under sub-Section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the M.V.Act. If required, in appropriate cases, court may permit amendment to the claim petition."
The Tribunal in his judgment in Paragraph No.17 has observed as under:-
"But during the cross examination he has admitted in categorical terms that if some employee of the G.E.B. is injured or has met with an accident, the Board reimburses the treatment charges. He has also admitted in clear words that the expenditure incurred by him for treatment has been reimbursed by the G.E.B. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Board has already reimbursed the treatment charges."
From the record itself, it reveals that the original claimant is not retired from the services and he has already reimbursed the treatment charges. The G.E.B. is not a party to the petition. Further, the accident took place in the year 1986, the application was moved in the year 2002 and it came for hearing after more than 14 years and therefore, there is no nexus with the accident. In my view, the applicant at this time cannot travel beyond the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is not appropriate to allow this application, therefore, the application is rejected.
The First Appeal to come-up on 07.02.2012.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.] ..mitesh..
Top