Munna Kanwar vs The United India Insurance Co. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1436 Raj

[2023/RJJD/004469]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2270/2021

1. Munna Kanwar W/o Late Shri Chotu Singh Ji, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Chhota Kheda, Tehsil Beigu, District Chittorgarh, Raj.

2. Harshwardhan Singh Ranawat S/o Late Shri Chotu Singh Ji, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Chhota Kheda, Tehsil Beigu, District Chittorgarh, Raj.

3. Pinki Ranawat D/o Late Shri Chotu Singh Ji, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Chhota Kheda, Tehsil Beigu, District Chittorgarh, Raj.

4. Akshita Kanwar D/o Late Shri Chotu Singh Ji, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Chhota Kheda, Tehsil Beigu, District Chittorgarh, Raj.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Meera Market, Chittorgarh, Raj. (Insurance Company).

2. Shivraj Singh Hada S/o Kamal Singh, B/c Rajpoot, R/o Semaliya, Tehsil Beigu, District Chittorgarh, Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)

----Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Bhanwar Singh Deora

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

07/02/2023

1. This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred claiming for the

following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:-

i. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the order and judgment dtd. 11-01-2021 (Annex-12) passed by the Learned Additional District Judge No.2 Chittorgharh may kindly be quasehd and set aside.

ii. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the petitioners may kindly be allowed to amend the number of

[2023/RJJD/004469] (2 of 5) [CW-2270/2021]

vehicle involved in the incident as RJ 09 JS 7476 instead of RJ 09 JS 7446 in the MACT original claim no. 01/2020 Munna Kanwar & Ors. v/s United Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. iii. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

iv. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned

counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioners filed a claim

petition before the learned MACT, Chittorgarh and the same is

pending adjudication and that owing to a typographical error in

the claim petition, the vehicle number of the incriminating vehicle

was incorrectly mentioned as RJ 09 JS 7446 instead of RJ 09 JS

7476. And, that the petitioners filed an application under Order VI

Rule 17 CPC for amending the said error, which came to be

dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.01.2021 (at Annex-12)

passed by the learned MACT, Chittorgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the written

report (at Annex-4) submitted by the informed Bhanwar Singh

before the S.H.O. Police Station-Beigu, District-Chittorgarh states

the correct vehicle number of the incriminating vehicle, being RJ

09 JS 7476. However, that the FIR registered as a result thereof,

being FIR bearing No.220/2019 dated 15.11.2019 (at Annex-5)

incorrectly mentions the vehicle number of the incriminating

vehicle as RJ 09 JS 7446.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the

incriminating vehicle bearing the vehicle no. RJ 09 JS 7476 was

[2023/RJJD/004469] (3 of 5) [CW-2270/2021]

seized by the police during the course of the investigation. And

that the said correct number was mentioned as the vehicle

number in the statements rendered (at Annex-9) by the

witnesses-Nemichand, Shivraj Singh Hada and Rahul, during the

course of investigation from the witnesses under Section 161

Cr.P.C. and that only the information rendered by Bhawar Singh

incorrectly mentioned the vehicle number of the incriminating

vehicle as RJ 09 JS 7446.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

correct vehicle number of the incriminating vehicle was also

mentioned in the charge-sheet (at Annex-11) filed by the

concerned police authorities, in pursuance of the aforementioned

FIR.

6. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment rendered

by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Manoj Kumari

and Ors. v. Gokaran Nath Misra and Ors. AIR 2009 All 178

decided on 21.01.2009.

Relevant portion as relied upon by learned counsel, is reproduced

hereunder:-

"9. An amendment which subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation should be allowed. There was merely a mis-description of the registration number of the vehicle, and allowing the amendment application could not have worked injustice or cause prejudice to the other party.

10. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the amendment application has been rejected mechanically in a most casual manner and the order is based on complete misreading of the case. The impugned order has not been passed in conformity with the principle of justice, equity and

[2023/RJJD/004469] (4 of 5) [CW-2270/2021]

good conscious. The reasoning assigned by the court below is superfluous and has not considered the matter in the right perspective and has been swayed by totally irrelevant consideration."

7. Heard. Perused the record of the case.

8. This Court observes that the impugned order, dated

11.01.2021, passed by the learned District Judge No.2,

Chittorgarh in MACT original claim No. 01/2020 (M.A.C.T.) rejected

the application preferred on behalf of the petitioners under Order

VI Rule 17 CPC; seeking to amend the vehicle number mentioned

in their claim petition on the ground that the same was incorrectly

mentioned owing to an inadvertent error on the grounds that the

claim petition and the impugned FIR mentioned the vehicle

number of the incriminating vehicle as RJ 09 JS 7446 and not as

RJ 09 JS 7476. And that, neither the petitioners nor the concerned

police authorities preferred an affidavit to the effect that an error

had occurred on their part. Furthermore, that during the

investigation by the respondent-Insurance Company also the

vehicle number was mentioned as RJ 09 JS 7446.

9. This Court, looking into the statements under Section 161

Cr.P.C. (at Annex-9) rendered by the witnesses-Nemichand,

Shivraj Singh Hada and Rahul, and the charge-sheet (at Annex-

11) filed by the concerned police authorities, in pursuance of the

aforementioned FIR mention the vehicle number of the

incriminating vehicle as RJ 09 JS 7476. It is thus clear that the

number was incorrectly mentioned in the claim petition, as

admitted by the petitioners and in the impugned FIR as well, as

[2023/RJJD/004469] (5 of 5) [CW-2270/2021]

the concerned police authorities have themselves rectified the

same in the impugned chargesheet.

10. This Court upon looking into the case of Manoj Kumari

(supra) finds that the same squarely applies to the case at hand.

11. This Court is thus of the firm opinion, in light of the

observations made hereinabove that the impugned order, dated

11.01.2021, passed by the learned MACT, Chittorgarh deserves to

be quashed and set aside.

12. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned

order dated 11.01.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside, and the

petitioners are granted the liberty to amend the number of the

vehicle involved in the incident, as RJ 09 JS 7476 instead of RJ 09

JS 7446 in the MACT Original Claim no. 01/2020 titled Munna

Kanwar & Ors. v/s United Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

13. Accordingly, the pending stay applications is disposed of.

14. No order as to costs.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 60-Sanjay/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)