Civil Revision No. 6590 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6590 of 2007 Date of Decision: April 22 , 2010 United India Insurance Company Limited .... Petitioner Versus Nain Bhadur Gupta and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.R.S.Madan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against the order allowing amendment of the claim petition filed by respondent No.1. In the claim petition the respondent who was injured had claimed that his income was Rs.25,000/- per month. Even in his evidence he stated that his income was Rs. 25,000/- per month. However,at the fag end he moved the instant application for amendment claiming that his income was actually Rs. 2500/- per month and, however, it was inadvertently mentioned as Rs. 25,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Civil Revision No. 6590 of 2007 2 once the respondent found that he was not able to establish the accident, in a clever device he sought to revive his income so as to bring it under the summary procedure of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and on this account amendment could not have been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that by this method the respondent would be successful in defrauding the petitioner even though no accident has taken place. Learned counsel for the respondent has reiterated the judgment of this Court in Gurmeet Kaur and others v. Hardeep Singh and another reported as 2005(2) PLR 503( which is also cited by the learned trial Court) wherein it has been held that by reducing the income no prejudice would be caused to the insurance company and thus such application, even though argued is the application for amendment was actually in the nature of application U/O 23 Rule 1 CPC abandoning part of his claim. In my opinion despite having granted various opportunities learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any contrary law. In the circumstances even while considering that the petitioner may have a point I, being bound by an earlier decision of this Court , have to dismiss this petition. Consequently this petitionis dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 22, 2010 sunita