Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Claim petition was filed by one Smt. Atro. During the pendency of the proceedings, she died on 22.4.2009. The legal heirs of the deceased claimant moved an application for being impleaded in her place and also sought certain amendments in the claim petition. The Tribunal vide order dated 29.1.2010 allowed the same. Aggrieved, the petitionerCorporation has approached this Court.
It is contended that there was no substitution application or application under Section 5 of the Limitation seeking condonation of delay in moving the same and hence the amendment sought by the heirs has wrongly and illegally been allowed.
I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
A perusal of the application moved by the respondents no. 3 & 4 the heirs of the deceased claimant, filed as annexure4 to the writ petition, goes to show that the application was for amendment in the claim petition as well as for being substituted as claimants. In the prayer clause also, it has also been prayed that the applicants may be impleaded in the proceedings.
In view of above, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. Further there has been no such inordinate delay in moving the application. Moreover, such hypertechnicalities cannot be allowed to stand in the way of claim made under the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation.
The writ petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.4.2010 nd