CR No.6465 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.6465 of 2007
Date of Decision: 20.08.2009
Dharampal ...Petitioner
Vs.
Sanjay & Ors. ..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present: Mr.S.R.Hooda, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
---
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
Digest?
---
Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral)
This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short the Tribunal)
vide which application moved by the petitioner/claimant for amendment of
claim petition was ordered to be dismissed.
CR No.6465 of 2007 2
The petitioner filed a claim petition on 24.9.2004 claiming
compensation on account of injuries suffered by the petitioner in a motor
vehicular accident which took place on 10.6.2004. The case set up by the
petitioner was that offending vehicle was TATA Sumo bearing
registration No.HR-15B-3938. Same number was pleaded in the petition.
Written statement was filed. Thereafter parties led evidence
wherein vehicle number was again given as HR-15-B-3938. It was pleaded
by the petitioner that actual registration number of he vehicle was HR-15-
3938 and amendment was sought to correct the typographical error. Copy
of the challan was produced in support of amendment application, wherein
number of vehicle was shown different on different places. At some places
number of vehicle was shown to be HR 15B-3938, whereas at some other
places it was shown as HR-15-3938.
The contention of the petitioner was that it was due to this that
wrong number was mentioned. It was alleged that vide recovery memo the
police had taken into possession vehicle bearing registration No.HR-15-
3938.
The application was contested primarily on the plea that
mechanical examination of vehicle HR-15B-3938 was conducted and
therefore, the petitioner could not be allowed to amend the petition at this
belated stage. The plea was accepted by the learned Tribunal.
On consideration of the matter, I find that the impugned order
cannot be sustained. Once it was not disputed that in the recovery memo the
police had taken vehicle No.HR-15-3938 in custody. Thus, there was no
CR No.6465 of 2007 3
occasion whatsoever, to mechanically examine vehicle No.HR-15B-3938.
Description of the vehicle and the make given in the petition tally with the
vehicle bearing No.HR-15-3938.
It may also be noticed here that vehicle No.HR-15-3938 stood
insured with the Insurance Company and therefore, there is hardly any
reason for the Insurance Company to contest the claim petition if vehicle
number was not No.HR-15-3938.
The amendment sought, therefore, was merely to correct,
typographical error, and was otherwise, necessary for the adjudication of
the dispute.
The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set
aside, and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of
the Code of Civil Procedure for the amendment of the petition is allowed
but with no order as to costs.
(Vinod K.Sharma)
20.08.2009 Judge
rp