THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.3426 OF 2009 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.6.2009 passed by the court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad in I.A.No.1226/2009 in O.P.No.144/007 in dismissing the interlocutory application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to amend the provision of law from Section 166(1)( c ) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to Section 163-A of the Act, the claimants filed the present revision. 3. From the material available on record it could be seen that the claimants filed the claim petition in O.P.No.144/2007 under Section 166(1)( c ) of the Act for the death one Banoth Vasanth, in the motor vehicle accident on 24.5.2006. The deceased is the husband of the first claimant, father of claimants 2 and 3 and son of claimants 4 and 5. The case of the claimants in the claim petition is that on 24.5.2006 while the deceased was proceeding on Hero Honda Splendor bearing no. AP -23-H-4339 from Bidipoor Thanda to Indalwai village and that when he reached in front of Indalwai Forest on N.H.No.7 , an unknown vehicle being driver by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed dashed against the deceased and due to the said injuries he sustained multiple injuries all over the body and died on the spot and therefore, they claimed compensation. By filing the present petition seeking to amend the provision of law from Section 166(1)( c ) to Section 163-A of the Act, their case is that the accident occurred due to the use of the insured vehicle. There is no dispute that mentioning of wrong provision of law will not deprive the relief to the party, if he/she is otherwise entitled to. But in the present case it is to be noticed that the claim of the claimants in the claim petition is that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of unknown vehicle, but by way of amendment, the claimants are seeking to amend the provision of law on the ground that the accident occurred due to the use of insured vehicle. Therefore, the pleas are self-contradictory and, therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the petition and I do not find any merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Accordingly the revision is dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------- - 27—01— 2009