- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 1414 of 2007 BHUVANA V/S YASHWANT RAO Mr. BHUSHAN SINGH CHARAN, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 22.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that vehicle said to have caused the accident is not proved to have caused the accident while deciding issue No.1, rather it has been found that the vehicle No.RJH 1786, said to be truck by which the accident is alleged to have been caused, while this registration number belongs to a motorcycle. Then since the dispute of identity of registration number, is only, as to whether the vehicle number was RJH or RSH, the defendant No.1, who has been impleaded as party, is the owner of the truck No.RSH 1786, and he has also led positive evidence to show, that no accident was caused by his truck No.RSH 1786, as the truck was engaged in operating from Railway Station to State Ware House. It is contended that the claimant had filed application in the trial Court seeking to withdraw the - 2 - claim petition with liberty to file fresh, and that application has been dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 7.7.2004, and has made endorsement in this regard about the change of the vehicle number by red ink. As the record stands, I do not find any such order in the file. However, the perusal of the impugned award specially finding on issue No.1 itself shows, that the learned Tribunal has considered the case from the stand point of the vehicle involved, being truck No.RSH 1786, instead of it being truck No.RJH 1786, therefore, in my view, the rejection of the application does not materially effect the matter. It is a different story that even otherwise, even if it were to be assumed that there was wrong mention of vehicle number, it would not constitute any formal defect, so as to entitle the claimant to withdraw the claim, with liberty to file fresh. It is again different story that the claimant's witnesses are asserting it and are categoric to the effect, that the vehicle was truck number RJH 1786, and not RSH 1786, so much so that A.W.3 Lalu has positively asserted, that since the vehicle was driven at a slow speed, he could read the number, and has asserted that it was truck No.RJH 1786. Thus, considering the matter from any stand point, even after re-appreciating the entire record, which had been requisitioned by this Court, I do not find the - 3 - impugned order to be suffering from any error requiring interference in the appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/