C.R. No.1444 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1444 of 2010 Date of Decision: 09.12.2010 Anil Kumar .....Petitioners Versus Yogesh Kumar alias Bablu and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Claimant-Anil Kumar has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 16.02.2010 Annexure P-3 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal thereby dismissing petitioner's application Annexure P-1 for amendment of the claim petition instituted by petitioner under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Claimant-petitioner filed claim petition claiming compensation for injuries suffered by him in accident alleging that the accident was caused by Tractor No.HR-38A-0438. By way of amendment application moved at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments, the claimant alleged that in fact registration number of the offending tractor is HR-33A- 0438 instead of HR-38A-0438. The same was proposed to be amended by moving the amendment application. Respondents by filing reply Annexure P-2 contested the aforesaid application. Learned Claims Tribunal vide order Annexure P-3 dismissed C.R. No.1444 of 2010 -2- the amendment application. Feeling aggrieved, claimant has filed the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Chassis/S.R. Number of the offending tractor was mentioned in the FIR as NGB5174 and in the recovery/seizure memo of the tractor, same chassis number along with registration No.HR-33A-0438 was mentioned , but in the claim petition, registration number of the tractor was erroneously mentioned to be HR-38A-0438 instead of HR-33A-0438 and amendment to this effect should have been allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that in the entire evidence, claimant has alleged the accident to have taken place with tractor No. HR-38A-0438 and even the FIR was lodged belatedly. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondents pertain to merits of the claim petition and cannot be adjudicated upon at the stage of deciding the question of amendment of the claim petition. On the contrary, prima facie the error in mentioning registration number of the offending tractor in the claim petition is apparent from the circumstances that chassis/S.R. Number of the tractor was mentioned in the FIR and same chassis number of the tractor along with its registration number as HR-33A-0438 was mentioned in the seizure memo. Consequently, amendment should have been allowed. Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act relating to compensation for accident victims are beneficial provisions. Benefit thereof should not be denied to the victim on account of technicalities or on account of some unintentional error. For delay in moving the amendment application at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments, the claimant could be burdened with some costs to compensate the respondents for the same. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that impugned order of the C.R. No.1444 of 2010 -3- Claims Tribunal is illegal and unsustainable and suffers from jurisdictional error. Learned Claims Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction which vested in it to allow the amendment application. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and impugned order Annexure P-3 passed by the Claims Tribunal is set aside. Application Annexure P-1 moved by the claimant-petitioner for amendment of claim petition is allowed, subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs precedent. 09.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE