Civil Revision No.6759 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6759 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 7, 2011 Simran and others .....Petitioners v. Pema Ram and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 20.10.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur, (for short the `Tribunal') vide which application filed by petitioners-claimant for amendment of the claim petition was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioners-claimants have initially shown respondent no.1-Pema Ram as driver and respondent no.2-Sharwan Kumar as owner of the offending tractor bearing registration No.RJ-10RO/1073. However, later on, it came to the notice of the petitioners-claimants that there was some typographical mistake in mentioning respondent no.1 as driver, whereas he is owner and respondent no.2 should have been mentioned as driver. The fact that Civil Revision No.6759 of 2011(O&M) -2- respondent no.1 is owner and respondent no.2 is driver involved in the accident has not been denied by respondents no.1 and 2 in reply to the application. Application has been opposed merely on the ground that objection was also taken in the written statement by respondents no.1 and 2, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that driver of offending vehicle is respondent no.2 and owner is respondent no.1 and, however, the application was filed at a belated stage. In view of these facts when both, the driver and the owner are impleaded as parties and there is only typographical mistake on the part of of lawyer for the petitioners-claimants, an opportunity can be granted to present petitioners-claimants to get the said mistake corrected by way of amendment and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. As a consequence thereof, application filed by petitioners-claimants is allowed. However, petitioners-claimants are burdened with cost of `5,000/-, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. For this view, reliance can be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co- op v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, CWP No.9563 of 2002, decided on 27.6.2002, wherein it was observed as under:- “ We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We Civil Revision No.6759 of 2011(O&M) -3- are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reasons for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner- Management before the Labour Court/Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.” However, liberty is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order. 7.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge