GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal alongwith an application being C.A.N. 940 of 2011 praying for some formal amendments in Column 17 of the claim application is taken up for hearing.
(2.) IT is submitted by Mr. Subir Banerjee, learned advocate for the claimants that in the claim application under Column 17 due to typographical mistake the cover note was wrongly noted as 781179 in place of 791179. According to him, though the name of the owner and the number of offending vehicle tallied with this correct cover note No.791179 being insured with the respondent Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., but during passing of judgment the learned Judge of the Claims Tribunal did not saddle the Insurance Company with the liability for payment of compensation amount as assessed by him. He further submits that though the original cover note No.791179 was produced in Court during evidence and was marked exhibit-2, but still learned Tribunal did not take note of the same. Learned Tribunal gave direction only upon the owner of the vehicle to make payment of the said compensation. According to him, as there is no dispute that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident duly-insured under the respondent Insurance Company having cover note No.791179,and there was also no dispute from the side of Insurance Company, learned Tribunal should have made Insurance Company jointly liable alongwith the owner to make payment of the said compensation. Accordingly, he has prayed for allowing the amendment application and thereafter to dispose of the appeal taking note of the said amendment. Mr. Sanjay Pal, learned advocate appearing for the respondent/ Insurance Company is fair enough to admit that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent Insurance Company at the relevant time under cover note No.791179.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , we are of the opinion that the learned Judge of the Claims Tribunal unnecessarily gave much reliance on the notings under Column 17 of the claim application which was admittedly not an evidence.;