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