CR No. 1440 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1440 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.5.2009 Darshana Devi .. Petitioner v. Vicky Kalra and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M. K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H. S. Saggu, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent No. 3. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The claimant has approached this Court challenging the order dated 18.2.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short, `the Tribunal'), dismissing the application filed for amendment of the claim petition. Briefly, the facts are that Rishu Garg died in a road accident on 23.8.2007. A claim petition was filed by his mother, wife and minor child. Immediately after filing of the claim petition, application for amendment thereof was filed before even service of the respondents was effected. The same was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the application was vague, as the proposed amendment was not mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the application, the paras, which were sought to be deleted and which were sought to be replaced, were mentioned, however, at one or two places, the words “instead of” were not mentioned. It was submitted that once on a reading of the application in its entirety, the proposed amendment was clear, the Tribunal had gone wrong in dismissing the application. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to amend the petition after the filing thereof. The application was also vague. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The application is not as CR No. 1440 of 2009 [2] vague as is sought to be pointed out by the learned court below, while rejecting the same. The application was filed at the very initial stage of filing of the claim petition before even service of the respondents had been effected. It was filed for the reason that certain facts were either not mentioned correctly or needed elaboration. Even if there was some clerical/typographical error in pointing out the amendment, which was sought to be made by the petitioner in the amendment application, considering the fact that the petitioner in the present case had lost the bread earner of the family, the court should have considered it and opportunity should have been granted to correct the error. The procedural law is subservient to justice and the rights of the parties should not be defeated merely on hyper technicalities. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order, passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to amend the claim petition. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.5.2009 mk