1 wp-4615.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4615 OF 2011 Smt.Masabi w/o Miraso Attar : Petitioner versus Shri Vitthal Vishnu Kamble and ors. : Respondents. Mr. Sudhakar G Thorat for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 17th December 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 In the above Petition, the notice for final disposal at the admission stage came to been issued on 18/7/2011. In spite of the service, none appears for the Respondents. In view of the narrow controversy involved in the above Petition, this Court deems it fit to hear the Petition finally at the admission stage. Hence Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard Shri Thorat, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2 The above Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 6/6/2011 by which order the Application for amendment of the Claim Petition to correct the vehicle number came to be rejected. 2 wp-4615.11.sxw 3 The facts in brief can be stated thus :- On 19/8/2008 the Petitioner was injured in the accident on account of the dash given to her on the back side by the vehicle owned by the Respondent No.1 which was driven by the Respondent No.2. It appears that an FIR has been registered in respect of the said accident. From the point of view of the present Petition, it is relevant to note that in the said FIR which is annexed to the above Petition, the vehicle number has been mentioned as MH-09-AD-4053 being “Bajaj Discover” model. The Petitioner herein filed a Claim Petition in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gadhinglaj being Petition No.48 of 2008. Relying on the said FIR, the Petitioner has mentioned the vehicle number as MH-09-AD-4053 of “Bajaj Discover Model” . The said Claim Petition proceeded to trial and in the evidence adduced on behalf of the Respondent No.3 Insurance Company, it came on record that the vehicle bearing the said number has not been insured by the said Respondent No.3- Insurance Co., and that the said vehicle is of the ownership of one Jayantilal Patel and not the Respondent No.1 to the said Claim Petition being Vitthal Kamble. This resulted in the Petitioner making inquiries with the RTO Authorities pursuant to which the RTO Authorities submitted the information to the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act wherein the RTO was informed that in so far as the vehicle is of the ownership of Respondent No.1 and insured by Bajaj Allianz is concerned, the vehicle number is MH-09- BD-4053. The policy number has also been mentioned in the said 3 wp-4615.11.sxw communication. The said communication was addressed to the advocate for the Petitioner claimant. The Petitioner thereafter applied for the amendment of the said Claim Petition so as to incorporate the vehicle number MH-09- BD-4053 in the Claim Petition. The Petitioner in support of the said application relied upon the Insurance Policy as well as the information supplied by the RTO Authorities referred to above herein. 4 The said application came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 6/6/2011. The rejection is on the ground that the vehicle number is sought to be totally changed after filing of the Claim Petition. 5 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my view, the above Petition is required to be allowed and the Petitioner is required to be allowed to change the vehicle number. It is required to be noted at the out set that the Petitioner has now the necessary material to indicate that in the vehicle number the series is to be corrected from “AD” to “BD” . The respondents, as can be seen, have not taken a stand in the claim petition that they have been wrongly joined as respondents as the vehicle allegedly involved in the said accident is not owned by them. 6 In the light of the material which is available with the Petitioner on the basis of which the amendment was sought, in my view, the trial Court ought to have allowed the said application for amendment of the Claim 4 wp-4615.11.sxw Petition. It is trite that an amendment which leads to the adjudication of the issues that arise between the parties ought to be allowed. In the instant case, it appears that on the basis of the FIR in which the said series “AD” has been mentioned that the Petitioner has stated that the vehicle number bears the Registration No.MH-09-AD-4053 in stead of MH-09-BD-4053. 7 In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 6/6/2011 would have to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the Application for amendment of the claim Petition so as to incorporate the new number is allowed. The Petitioner would carry out the amendment in the Claim Petition within a period of four weeks from date. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. 8 The concerned parties to act upon an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar. [R.M.SAVANT, J]