Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Manisha – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Sautha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges mact amendment dismissal post-accident claim. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. insurance denies liability for unlicensed driver, gratuitous passengers. (Para 3 , 4 , 20) |
| 3. claimants seek amendment alleging crushed by vehicle, not passengers. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. amendment opposed: changes case nature, lacks due diligence, contradicts fir. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. hc hears arguments on trial stage, prejudice from amendment. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. o6 r17 bars post-trial amendments without due diligence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. amendment refused if changes suit's fundamental character. (Para 24) |
| 8. no due diligence; new facts prejudice insurer, falsified by fir. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 9. related petitions dismissed; no interference with tribunal order. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
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 learne
Amendment under Order VI Rule 17 refused when it changes claim's fundamental character from passengers in goods vehicle to workers crushed below road, withdraws admissions, lacks due diligence, and a....
Amendment under Order VI Rule 17 rejected in claim petition as it altered fundamental nature from passenger death in goods vehicle to crushing of labourer, lacked due diligence, contradicted FIR, and....
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 ....
Amendment under Order VI Rule 17 rejected as it introduced new inconsistent facts changing accident from passengers injured in rollover to workers crushed by rolling vehicle, altering cause of action....
Amendment under Order VI Rule 17 impermissible at arguments stage without delay explanation or due diligence, if it alters case complexion impacting negligence determination.
Amendment of pleadings in claims is permissible if necessary for justice, but should not change the nature of the case or prejudice other parties.
The Claims Tribunal must complete pleadings and conduct inquiries before deciding on the liabilities of parties in motor accident claims; premature deletions or piecemeal rulings are prohibited.
Amendments to pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC should be liberally allowed unless they cause serious injustice or change the nature of the suit.
(1) Motor accident – After lodging FIR and on receipt of information by insurance company, it would be duty of company to appoint a Nodal Officer and furnish intimation to State police, who shall coo....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
