SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(HP) 312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Romesh Verma, J.
Smt. Kamla & Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
Ajay Sautha & another - Respondent
CMPMO Nos. 588,of 2025
Decided On : 12-03-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sahil Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate

Amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC impermissible if changes basic structure of pleadings, withdraws admissions, lacks due diligence, and counters insurer defense post-reply in motor accident claim involving policy breaches like gratuitous passengers.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings in motor accident claim petition - Proposed amendment to alter facts from deceased travelling as passenger in goods vehicle (tipper truck) that fell into ditch due to rash negligent driving, to deceased being crushed while working on construction site below road when vehicle rolled down - Held, amendment changes basic structure and character of petition, introduces totally new inconsistent case, withdraws key admissions, lacks due diligence despite facts known from inception and FIR by eyewitness/injured claimant stating passengers were in vehicle - Application filed after insurer filed reply highlighting policy breaches (unlicensed driver, carriage of gratuitous passengers in empty goods vehicle not designed for passengers) - No prejudice compensable; amendment sought to fill lacuna, defeat insurer defense and shift liability - Rightly rejected by tribunal even pre-trial; no interference under supervisory jurisdiction. (Paras 21-26, 30)

(B) Amendment applications - Burden on applicant post-commencement of proceedings to prove despite due diligence matter could not be raised earlier - Not matter of right; refused if mala fide, causes prejudice not compensable by costs, or time-barred indirectly - Coordinate bench decisions in similar petitions arising from same accident binding, upholding rejections. (Paras 24-25, 29-30)

Facts of the case:
Claimants filed petition claiming death of family member in accident while returning home in truck-tipper driven rashly negligently, falling into ditch; sought compensation. Insurer contested maintainability alleging driver unlicensed, vehicle goods carrier carrying unauthorised gratuitous passengers (seven including driver, three dead), empty of goods, breach of policy terms. Claimants then sought amendment to state deceased labourers working below road crushed by falling vehicle, citing witness supervisor, rustic illiteracy, FIR inaccuracies. Tribunal dismissed; petitioners challenged under supervisory jurisdiction.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order dismissing amendment application does not suffer error; proposed changes impermissible, consistent across related claims where similar amendments rejected and upheld.

Issues: Whether proposed amendment permissible under Order VI Rule 17 despite changing accident narrative and deceased position, post-insurer reply but pre-trial; due diligence shown; prejudice to insurer.

Ratio Decidendi: Court cannot allow amendment introducing inconsistent facts altering fundamental suit character, withdrawing admissions, without due diligence proof; especially to counter disclosed defense in beneficial claim proceedings - weighs against multiplicity avoidance where mala fide evident from eyewitness FIR contradiction and timing.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. original claim: death from negligent truck driving. (Para 1 , 2 , 18 , 19)
2. insurance breach: unlicensed driver, gratuitous passengers. (Para 3 , 4 , 20)
3. amendment alleges crushed while road construction work. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. amendment lacks diligence, changes petition nature. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. tribunal rejected amendment; no prejudice claimed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. o6 r17 requires due diligence post-trial. (Para 21 , 22)
7. amendment cannot alter fundamental case structure. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
8. consistent rejections in related claims upheld. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
9. petition dismissed; order affirmed. (Para 31)
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.

The present petition arises out of the order dated 28.08.2025, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge(II), Shimla, H.P., whereby the application filed by the claimants/petitioners for the amendment of the petition has been ordered to be dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants/petitioners filed petition before the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. by filing Claim Petition bearing case No. M.A.C.T/2/2024, titled as Kamla & others vs. Ajay Sauhta & another. It was claimed in the Claim Petition that Smt. Khali Budha alias Khimla, wife of Sh. Jai Bahadur Budha (mother of the petitioners) died in an accident on 10.09.2023 at about 6.00 p.m when she was returning back to her home after completing her work in a vehicle bearing No. HP63-7198 (Truck-Tipper). It was stated that driver of the truck namely Dinesh son of Sh. Ramesh,r/o Sukeda, Nepal, c/o Ajay Sauhta, r/o VPO Dhar, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he could not control it and as a result of which truck fell down from the road in a ditch. The deceased received serious and grievous injuries on her head and neck. The successors of deceased Sh. Khali Budha alias Khimla filed the Claim Petition for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- (Fifty lacs) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the accident till its realization.

3. The petition was contested by the present respondent No.2- The New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Deputy Manager, Divisional Office, 3rd Floor, Block No.7,SDA Complex, Shimla,HP. It was categorically submitted by the New India Assurance Company(Respondent No.2) that the Claim Petition is not maintainable in its present form. It was stated that the deceased Driver, who was driving the vehicle No. HP-63-7198 at the time of accident on 10.09.2023, was not holding any valid and effective driving licence. It was averred that since driver of the vehicle was not having any valid and effective driving licence, therefore, there is gross violation of conditions of insurance policy. It was stated that the insured vehicle being a heavy goods vehicle (Truck-Tipper) which was carrying unauthorized gratuitous passengers, was empty at the time of accident and no goods whatsoever were found loaded in it at the time of accident. Seven persons including driver were travelling in this vehicle at the time of accident. Amongst them, three had died while four other have received injuries.

4. It is further submitted that this vehicle being heavy goods vehicle (Tipper) is specifically meant for carrying construction material like sand and stone etc. and not designed for carrying passengers and having seating capacity of three person only. It was further submitted that the owner had allowed all these persons being his labourers to travel in this vehicle and has thus knowingly and willfully disobeyed the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, this is a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, thus liability for payment of compensation, if any is of the respondent/owner only.

5. Pursuant to the filing of the reply by the Assurance Company, the claimants /petitioners filed an appl


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top