Civil Revision No.1630 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1630 of 2011 Date of Decision:18.07.2011 Sewak Singh @ Gursewak Singh ......Petitioner Versus Jaswinder Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Jaswinder Singh and Reshama Kaur, the unfortunate parents/claimants filed a claim petition, claiming the damages, caused to them, on account of death of their son Jaspreet Singh, who died in a motor accident in question, stated to have taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Sewak Singh @ Gursewak Singh- respondent No.1-petitioner, while driving his Tractor bearing registration No.PUK-3591, insured with respondent No.2, initially invoking the provisions of Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). Subsequently, in the wake of application moved by the claimants, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(for short “the MACT”) corrected Section 163-A instead of Section 166 of the Act, in the heading of the claim petition, by virtue of impugned order dated 09.12.2010, which in substance is, as under:- “Present: Sh.N.S.Sandhu, counsel for the claimants. Sh.Atul Gupta, counsel for respondent No.1. **** Claimants moved application seeking permission to amend the claim Civil Revision No.1630 of 2011 2 petition by amending the head note of the claim by writing Section 163-A instead of 166. The claim petition is at initial stage. No prejudice shall be caused to the respondent if the application for amendment is allowed. Therefore, the application for amendment is allowed. Amended head note by adding the amendment filed. The same be read on the record. Written statement by respondent No.1 be filed on 4.1.2011.” 2. Petitioner-respondent No.1 Sewak Singh @ Gursewak Singh, owner/driver of the offending Tractor, did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and preferred the instant revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition in this respect. 4. Ex facie, the arguments of the learned counsel that since, the MACT did not issue any notice of the application, for correction of heading of the claim petition and the petition under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable, so, the impugned order is illegal, san merit. 5. As is evident from the record that, the impugned order was passed by the Court in the presence of his counsel Atul Gupta. Once, the impugned order was passed in the presence of counsel for the petitioner-respondent No.1, then it cannot possibly be saith that the same was passed at his back. Moreover, the MACT has only permitted the claimants to write/correct Section 163-A instead of Section 166 of the Act, in the heading of the claim petition and nothing else. Whether the petition under Section 163-A of the Act is maintainable or not, or the claimants are entitled to compensation etc., would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial of the claim petition and the same cannot be decided at this preliminary stage. Thus, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present of circumstances. Civil Revision No.1630 of 2011 3 6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, to me, no ground for interference in the impugned order is made out, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, since, there is no merit, so, the revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. July 18, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE