IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5576 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 13th September, 2011 National Insurance Company Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Rohit Sharma and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 10th August, 2011, whereby application filed by the claimant for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed. Respondent-claimant had sustained injuries in an accident occurred on 6th September, 2007 and had filed a claim petition for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Tribunal’). In the claim petition, it was stated that vehicle Mahindra Pick-up Van bearing registration No.PB08Q-7393 came from the other side and had caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving. In the application filed for amendment, it was stated that the vehicle has been correctly described as Mahindra Pick-up Van, however, due to inadvertence in the claim petition the registration Civil Revision No.5576 of 2011 (O&M) number mentioned was PH08Q-7393 instead of PB08AQ-7393. The Tribunal allowed the amendment by observing as under: “6. The claimant has filed the present application on the ground that due to inadvertence and arithmetical error the registration number of offending vehicle was wrongly mentioned as PB08-Q-7393 and in fact the number of the vehicle was PB08-AQ-7393 and seeks the amendment qua the number as and where it is so mentioned wrongly in the petition. Perusal of the file reveals that in fact the registration certificate as well as the insurance policy on the record pertains to vehicle registration No.PB08-AQ-7393 and respondent No.2 is recorded as owner of the said vehicle. The error seems to be inadvertent and accidental. No doubt, the evidence of the claimant is already over and case is fixed for respondent evidence, however, this Court is to see if amendment sought is just and necessary for effective adjudication of the matter in controversy and if it is found so, amendment can be allowed. No prejudice would be caused to the opposite party in case, amendment sought is allowed.” Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds: (a) That Order VI Rule 17 CPC specifically states that no amendment shall be allowed, therefore, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in allowing the amendment. (b) That by allowing the amendment, vehicle number has changed and the vehicle number stated in the claim petition is of Luna moped, therefore, the entire story of the claimant has to fall on ground. 2 Civil Revision No.5576 of 2011 (O&M) I have perused the impugned order. According to the humble opinion of this Court, the same suffers from no infirmity. In the claim petition, it was specifically stated that the vehicle, which caused the accident was Mahindra Pick-up Van. Probably due to typing error, word ‘A’ missed while describing the registration number. The petitioner has also specifically pleaded that the accident had taken place with Mahindra Pick-up Van. Furthermore, in the record of the case, registration certificate and the insurance policy of the vehicle contained correct registration number. Therefore, allowing the amendment was in the interest of justice. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 13, 2011 rps 3