Allowed

Ganpat Ram v. Sukha Ram

Rajasthan HC2 Nov 2023CW/17939/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissing their application to amend the time of a motor accident from p.m. to a.m. due to a typo. The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Tribunal's order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; application dated May 08, 2019 entertained; time in claim petition amended to 9:15 a.m.

Ganpat Ram Vs Sukha Ram — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:37905]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17939/2019

¶4

Ganpat Ram S/o Late Bhera Ram, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Puniyo Ki Basni, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur.

¶5

Smt. Pattu Devi D/o Late Bhera Ram, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Puniyo Ki Basni, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur.

¶6

Smt. Chhoti D/o Late Bhera Ram, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Puniyo Ki Basni, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur.

¶7

Smt. Jamna W/o Late Bhera Ram, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Puniyo Ki Basni, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sukha Ram S/o Mangilal, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Bharinagar, Dhanari Kalan, P.s. Kherapa, District Jodhpur.

¶11

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Residency Road, Jodhpur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. B.L.	Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: None

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶15

Order (Oral)

¶16

02/11/2023

¶17

Impugned herein is an order dated September 30, 2019, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, whereby an application moved by the petitioners herein under Order 6, Rule 17, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking an amendment of the claim petition, was dismissed.

[2023:RJ-JD:37905]

[CW-17939/2019]

(2 of 4)

Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant writ petition.

¶22

2.1 Claim petition before the learned Tribunal is for seeking compensation on account of the death of Meraram, aged 56 years, in a motor vehicular accident that took place on April 03, 2023. Petitioners filed an application dated May 08, 2019 (Annexure-6) under Order 6, Rule 17, read with Section 151 of the CPC, to amend the time of the accident in question in Para Nos. 8, 11, 13, and 28 of the claim petition. It is stated therein that due to a typographical error, the time of the accident was wrongly typed as p.m. instead of a.m.

¶23

2.2 After going through a reply dated September 25, 2019 (Annexure-7) to the said application from respondent No. 2 and hearing both parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application, as per the order impugned herein. Hence, the instant writ petition.

¶24

Vide an earlier order dated May 29, 2023 passed by a coordinate bench of this court, service of notice upon respondent No. 1 was dispensed with. Despite service, none has caused appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2, which deemingly is suggestive that there is no serious objection to the petition herein. 4. In the aforesaid background, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

Learned counsel would submit that it is borne out from the record itself that the accident occurred in the morning, and after completing the last ceremony of deceased Bhera Ram, Shri Bhanwar Ram lodged an FIR on the next day.

[2023:RJ-JD:37905]

[CW-17939/2019]

(3 of 4)

My attention has been drawn to Annexure-4 dated April 03, 2017, which is a letter addressed to the Medical Officer by the son of the deceased. This letter is dated much before the drafting of the pleadings and the subsequent developments. It narrates the accident at the very first instance, where it is clearly stated that the accident took place on April 03, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.

¶30

Not only that, reference may be had to Annexure-5, which is a notice dated April 05, 2017, issued under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the investigating officer to the owner of the vehicle. Once again, in this notice, it is clearly stated that on the fateful day, the accident took place at 9:15 a.m.

¶31

Furthermore, on a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the witnesses who appeared in support of the claim petition have also deposed before the learned Tribunal that the accident took place at 9:00 a.m. and not 9:00 p.m. Notwithstanding, due to an inadvertent typographical error in the claim petition while narrating the facts leading to the accident, it has been wrongly stated that the same happened at 9:00 p.m.

¶32

Having seen the sequence of events coupled with multiple occasions where it has been repeatedly stated that the accident took place in the morning and not in the evening hours, it does appear that there has been a bona fide mistake in the claim petition in recording the time of the accident.

¶33

That the accident occurred on 03.04.2017 at 9:15 a.m. (morning), is also mentioned in the application filed by Bhanwar Ram before the Medical Officer, MDMH, Jodhpur, for handing over

[CW-17939/2019]

[2023:RJ-JD:37905]

(4 of 4)

the dead body of Bhera Ram without an examination of postmortem.

¶38

As an upshot, I am of the view that the Tribunal took a rather over-pedantic view that since evidence had already been recorded, the application seeking correction in the time was belated and could not have been entertained. In the totality of the circumstances, the learned Tribunal committed an error in not entertaining the application, as allowing the same would not have amounted to adducing any fresh evidence. In fact, in the course of the hearing, on a Court query, learned counsel fairly states that if the application seeking correction in the time in the claim petition is allowed, he would not need to adduce any additional evidence. 12. In the premise, the petition herein is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The application dated May 08, 2019 (Annexure-6) seeking an amendment in the claim petition qua wrong noting of the time is also, therefore, allowed, and the time in the claim petition shall be read as 9:15 a.m.

¶39

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶40

218-Ravi/ divyaP/-

¶41

Fit for reporting Yes / No

Ganpat Ram v. Sukha Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat Ram v. Sukha Ram

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

Smt. Antari Devi Vs Chunni Lal and Anr.

St. Patrick Vidhya Bhawan Vs State and Ors.

Lokmanya Tilak Pashudhan Sahayak Mahavidhyalaya Vs State of Rajasthan

Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur Vs Sheela Kumari

Lalit Rajpurohit Vs Sub Divisional Officer

Suja Ram Vs Pali Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.