Civil Revision No. 7463 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7463 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.5.2010. Jeet Ram ....Petitioner Versus Raja Ram and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tapan Yadav, Advocate for respondent No1. RAJESH BINDAL, J The claimant has approached this Court by filing the present revision petition whereby the application filed by him before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari, seeking amendment of claim petition, was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. In the claim petition the number of the vehicle was mentioned as HR- 26-D-6463. Having come to know that infact the correct number was HR-36-D- 6463, application was filed seeking amendment of the claim petition, but the same having been rejected, the petitioner/claimant is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the error in noticing the number of the vehicle involved in the accident in the claim petition was bonafide as it was a difference of numerical letter only as against '36-D' '26- D' was mentioned. The amendment is not going to change the nature of the claim. The correct parties have already been impleaded. The error being bonafide, the amendment deserves to be allowed. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that in case the amendment is allowed at this stage, the same will change the nature of the proceedings as now the stand of the respondent is that he was not involved in the accident at all, being not the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. In fact the number of the vehicle of the respondent is sought to be given only because there is enemity between the petitioner and the respondent. He has been falsely implicated in the case. Prayer was for dismissal of the petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the present petition deserves to be allowed. On a query by the Court as to which Civil Revision No. 7463 of 2009 -2- number was mentioned in the FIR registered after the accident, it was pointed out that though the vehicle number mentioned in the FIR was HR-26-D-6463, however, the name of the driver of the vehicle was correctly mentioned. Once that is so, there is a possibility of mentioning of incorrect number in the FIR and consequently in the claim petition which error deserves to be corrected and the petitioner is entitled to amend his claim petition to that effect. As far as the stand of the respondent regarding his false implication in the case is concerned, he can very well raise that issue before the Tribunal and lead his evidence in defence as merely correction of vehicle number will not lead to any definite conclusion. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is hereby accepted. The impugned order passed by the learned Court below dismissing the application for amendment of the claim petition is set aside and the same is allowed. However, it shall be subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to the respondent which shall be paid by him on the next date of hearing before the Tribunal. (RAJESH BINDAL) 14.5.2010. JUDGE Reema