Allowed

Harbans Kaur W/O Som Nath and Others v. Dhanna Singh S/O Ram Kishan and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Nov 2011CR/6745/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition under Article 227, the High Court allowed the claimants to amend their affidavit correcting an inadvertent mistake regarding the name of the tractor driver, setting aside the Tribunal's order declining the amendment, noting CPC procedural strictures do not apply.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.7.2011 set aside; claimant permitted to amend affidavit

Harbans Kaur W/O Som Nath and Others Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CR No.6745/2011(O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.6745/2011(O&M) Date of decision: 04.11.2011.

¶5

Harbans Kaur and others

¶6

....................Petitioners

¶7

¶8

Dhanna Singh and others

¶9

.....................Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh

¶11

Present: Mr.Aftab Singh Khara,Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral)

¶13

Harbans Kaur-claimant alongwith her six minor children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short the Act) for grant of compensation on account of death of her husband Som Nath in a motor vehicular accident caused by respondent no.1Dhanna Singh, driver of the tractor and owned by Naib Singh and insured by M/s New India Insurance Co.Ltd.

¶14

The claimants/petitioners have filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the order dated 27.7.2011 (P1) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala whereby the prayer for amending the affidavit tendered by claimant Harbans Kaur in her examination in chief, has

¶15

CR No.6745/2011(O&M) 2

¶16

been declined.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, it has been specifically asserted that respondent no.1-Dhanna Singh was the driver of the offending tractor who had caused the accident and in the FIR also Dhanna Singh is stated to be driver of the offending tractor, however, Harbans Kaurclaimant while tendering affidavit in her examination in chief has inadvertently mentioned the name of the owner of the tractor- Naib Singh, to be driver of the offending tractor instead of Dhanna Singh. Accordingly, an application for amending the affidavit has been made since the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable to the proceedings of summary nature before the learned Tribunal. He contends that the ends of justice require that the amendment as prayed be allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 27.7.2011 (P1).

¶18

For the view I propose to take in the present revision petition, I do not deem it necessary to issue notice to respondents as it would unnecessarily delay the matter and entail expenditure on their part.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that the petition deserves to be accepted.

¶20

It cannot be disputed that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a persona designata and the principles of Code of Civil Procedure are stricto senso not applicable during the conduct of proceedings of summary nature by such tribunals. It is quite settled

¶21

CR No.6745/2011(O&M) 3

¶22

that such tribunals are free to evolve their own procedure keeping in view the general principles of law.

¶23

In the facts of the present case when an inadvertent mistake has been committed by the claimant Harbans Kaur while stating the name of the driver of the offending tractor as Naib Singh instead of Dhanna Singh, it is in the interest of justice that such an inadvertent mistake is permitted to be corrected keeping in view the nature of rights being adjudicated by the tribunal.

¶24

Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 27.7.2011 (P1) is set aside and the claimant-Harbans Kaur is permitted to make necessary amendment in her affidavit tendered in examination in chief.

¶25

Disposed of in the above terms.

¶26

04.11.2011 joshi

¶27

(Jaswant Singh) Ju dge

Harbans Kaur W/O Som Nath and Others v. Dhanna Singh S/O Ram Kishan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbans Kaur W/O Som Nath and Others v. Dhanna Singh S/O Ram Kishan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipan Kumar Vs Ludhiana Stock Exchange Association Ltd.

Gurmit Singh Vs Jaswant Singh and Ors.

Veera Kumari and Ors. Vs Natho Devi and Ors.

Nishan Singh Vs Ujjagar Singh and Ors.

Satbir and Ors. Vs Dano and Ors.

Bachan Kaur Vs Prabh Simran Singh Gill and Ors.