HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8195 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the MACT, whereby while rejecting the amendment application, the Tribunal has directed the lodging of an FIR and proceeding for violation of the provisions of the Act. 3. On the directions of this Court, Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, who is a panel lawyer for respondent No.3, accepted notice on behalf of the insurance company. He is present and has assisted this Court. 4. Perusal of the order reveals that the petitioner had filed a claim petition for grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which was registered as MACP No.226 of 2017. In the said claim petition, the petitioner had disclosed his age as 45 years. Subsequently, an application was filed seeking amendment in the age mainly on the ground that in the aadhar card, driving licence and other documents, the age of the petitioner is 39 years and 6 months. The MACT rejected the application and found that the petitioner has prima facie disclosed wrong facts before the Aadhar Authority and while getting the driving license, thus, the MACT issued direction for lodging of an FIR and for prosecution of the petitioner. 5. The said approach of the MACT is wholly unwarranted as the act in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jayshanker Shukla, Anurag Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ram Baksh Yadav @ Ashok Kumar .....Petitioner(s) Presiding Officer Motor Accidental Claim Tribunal Dist. Sultanpur And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) question is a socio- beneficiary legislation and penal directions have been issued. It was open for the Tribunal to either accept or reject the amendment application. Irrespective of the age of 45 or 39 years as was pleaded by the petitioner, it would have no difference while awarding the compensation. 6. Thus, in view thereof, the order impugned cannot be sustained. As the petitioner had sought to amend the plaint on the basis of the statutory documents, the same ought to have been allowed. 7. The amendment application No.48-Kha is allowed. 8. The matter is remanded to the MACT to decide the MACP No.226 of 2017 with all expedition, in accordance with law within a period of six months. 9. The respondent, however, would be at liberty to file a reply to the amended portion of the claim petition. 10. The petition stands disposed of. August 28, 2025 Ashutosh WRIC No. 8195 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench