CR No. 1440 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1440 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.5.2009
Darshana Devi
.. Petitioner
v.
Vicky Kalra and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. M. K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H. S. Saggu, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
The claimant has approached this Court challenging the order dated
18.2.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short, `the
Tribunal’), dismissing the application filed for amendment of the claim petition.
Briefly, the facts are that Rishu Garg died in a road accident on
23.8.2007. A claim petition was filed by his mother, wife and minor child.
Immediately after filing of the claim petition, application for amendment thereof
was filed before even service of the respondents was effected. The same was
dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the application was vague, as the
proposed amendment was not mentioned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the application,
the paras, which were sought to be deleted and which were sought to be replaced,
were mentioned, however, at one or two places, the words “instead of” were not
mentioned. It was submitted that once on a reading of the application in its
entirety, the proposed amendment was clear, the Tribunal had gone wrong in
dismissing the application.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was
not entitled to amend the petition after the filing thereof. The application was also
vague.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The application is not as
CR No. 1440 of 2009 [2]
vague as is sought to be pointed out by the learned court below, while rejecting the
same. The application was filed at the very initial stage of filing of the claim
petition before even service of the respondents had been effected. It was filed for
the reason that certain facts were either not mentioned correctly or needed
elaboration. Even if there was some clerical/typographical error in pointing out the
amendment, which was sought to be made by the petitioner in the amendment
application, considering the fact that the petitioner in the present case had lost the
bread earner of the family, the court should have considered it and opportunity
should have been granted to correct the error. The procedural law is subservient to
justice and the rights of the parties should not be defeated merely on hyper
technicalities.
For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order, passed by the
Tribunal is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to amend the claim petition.
The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
30.5.2009
mk