A discrepancy in the vehicle number in an FIR does not invalidate a claim if the error is corrected through a legal amendment to pleadings and confirmed by subsequent police investigation/charge-sheet, especially when the opposing party fails to lead evidence to the contrary.

Order

MANEESH SHARMA, J (ORAL):

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on behalf of the appellant against the judgment and award dated 19.09.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Tonk, and Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Tonk in claim petition No.127/2004 (2611/2001) (183/1999) whereby an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been passed in favour of the claimant and the Insurance Company has been exonerated from its liability of making payment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed claim petition wherein it was submitted that on 14.05.1998, an accident took place wherein the deceased was going in a tractor and on account of tractor having an over turn, death was caused.

3. The claim petition has been contested by the appellants by filing reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition and it has been contended by the appellants that no accident was occurred with tractor No.RJ 25R 4958, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

4. The respondent No.4- Insurance Company also filed reply to the claim petition and contended that the tractor was insured for agricultural purposes, not for carrying the passengers and in the present case, the deceased was travelling in the tractor as a passenger, therefore, the risk of the deceased was not covered in terms of policy.

5. In support of the claim petition, the claimant examined two witnesses i.e. AW-1 Sua Lal and AW-2 Sitaram and produced 9 documents i.e. Ex.1 FIR, Ex.2 Charge-sheet, Ex.3 Parcha Bayan, Ex.4 Naksha Moka, Ex.5 Post-mortem report, Ex.6 Notice under Section 133 MV Act, Ex.7 Supurdginama, Ex.8 Registration and Ex.9 Insurance Cover note, however, the respondents-non applicants have not led any evidence.

6. After hearing arguments of the parties, the learned MACT Court awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- against the appellants but the Insurance Company was exonerated due to violation of the terms of the policy.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the impugned order passed by learned MACT Court is arbitrary and perverse. It was further submitted that there is discrepancy in the tractor number mentioned in the FIR and in the claim petition, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submitted that initially because of some bona fide error in the FIR tractor number was mentioned as RJ 25R 1758 but later on during course of investigation, it was revealed that correct tractor number was RJ 25R 4958 and after conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the tractor No. RJ 25R 4958, therefore, the contentions so advanced by learned counsel for the appellant are untenable in the eyes of law.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

10. The prime contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the discrepancy with regard to tractor number in the FIR and in the claim petition the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

11. Bare perusal of the record reveals that initially the claimants have filed the claim petition with regard to the tractor number RJ 25R 1758 but later on, the claimants filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking correction in the pleadings with regard to the tractor number and the same was allowed and the said amended order was never challenged by the appellant, thus, attained finality.

12. It is also evident