Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 27th May, 2005, whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur, dismissed the application of the petitioner-applicant filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the claim petition. 2. The facts of the case, in brief are that the petitioner filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur, on 5th August, 1996 stating that Kalu was travelling on Tractor No. RNI 1384 and died in road accident due to negligent driving of the Tractor driver. The petitioner-applicant mentioned the number of the Tractor involved in the accident to be RJ 14 1384, whereas the correct number of Tractor involved in accident was RNI 1384. This error, in fact, crept into while typing the claim petition. The petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal imploring to permit him to make an amendment in the claim petition and the same was dismissed sans assigning any cogent reason. 3. Learned counsel further canvassed that the petitioner is the mother of the deceased Kalu, who is illiterate lady and she could not check the contents of the clam petition. It was negligence on the part of the counsel also, who filed the claim petition but nevertheless, the petitioner should not be deprived of seeking justice because of error having been committed by the petitioner or by her counsel. Learned counsel has prayed to allow the writ petition and permit him to amend the claim petition so as to correct the Tractor number. 4. E converso, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that not only the Tractor No. RJ 14 1384 figured in the claim petition but the same number has been reproduced by the eye witnesses also while giving oral testimony before the learned Tribunal. Thus, it could not be said that the petitioner entered the wrong Tractor number in the claim petition, but the petitioner wants to rectify his mistake and set up a new case in his favour. Thus, it could not be said that the petitioner entered the wrong Tractor number in the claim petition, but the petitioner wants to rectify his mistake and set up a new case in his favour. In case, the amendment is allowed, the respondents, who has already taken one stand with regard to the said Tractor number, were have to change steps and thus, it shall adversely affect its rights to contest the petition. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material, it is relevant to record that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable to the claim petitions, as the said legislation is a social legislation enacted keeping in view the welfare of the persons who meets with sudden death in road accidents. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the evidence collected by the police during investigation and contended that in all the relevant papers, the police has mentioned the Tractor No. RNI 1384 and that is the correct number of the Tractor, which was involved in the road accident. It is that Tractor whereupon the deceased Kalu was travelling. I find sufficient force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Tribunal, albeit, is found to have recorded all these facts in the impugned order, but has dismissed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC arbitrarily sans assigning any cogent reason. So far as the number of Tractor narrated by the eye witness is concerned, that is a part of the appreciation of evidence, which is required to be dealt with by the learned Tribunal while adjudicating the claim petition. The amendment, of course, in the claim petition, must have been allowed by the learned Tribunal and the impugned order to that extent is not found to be just and proper. 6. In view of above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 27th May, 2005, rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur, stands set aside. 7. Consequent upon the disposal of the writ petition, the stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.