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) 315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Romesh Verma, J.
Smt. Manisha and Ors . - Petitioner
Versus
Ajay Sautha & Another - Respondent
CMPMO Nos. 589 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 refused when it changes claim's fundamental character from passengers in goods vehicle to workers crushed below road, withdraws admissions, lacks due diligence, and aims to defeat insurance policy breach defense.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - Motor accident claim petition originally alleging deceased died as passenger in goods vehicle driven rashly and negligently causing vehicle to fall into ditch - Proposed amendment to allege deceased and co-labourers working on retaining wall beneath road crushed when vehicle rolled down - Amendment changes fundamental character of claim, introduces new inconsistent case, withdraws admissions that deceased was occupant, lacks due diligence as facts known from inception and application filed after insurer reply highlighting policy breach - No prejudice compensable but alters basic structure and cause - Amendment rightly refused even before trial commencement. (Paras 21, 23-26)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - No interference with tribunal order dismissing amendment where coordinate benches dismissed similar petitions from same accident arising claims by upholding same reasoning on inconsistent pleadings and lack of bona fides. (Paras 27-31)

Facts of the case:
Claimants filed petition seeking compensation for death in accident involving goods vehicle carrying labourers as unauthorized passengers including deceased; insurer defended on no valid licence, carriage of gratuitous passengers in heavy goods vehicle meant for construction material, policy breach limiting liability to owner. Claimants later sought amendment changing narrative to labourers crushed below road by rolling vehicle; tribunal dismissed; petition challenging dismissal.

Findings of Court:
Proposed amendment rejected; impugned order upheld.

Issues: Whether proposed amendment permissible under Order VI Rule 17 despite changing claim nature from passengers to crushed workers; whether due diligence shown post-insurer reply.

Ratio Decidendi: Amendment impermissible if seeks to introduce totally different inconsistent case altering fundamental suit character or withdrawing admissions; applicant bears burden to prove despite due diligence matter could not earlier raised; here application mala fide to counter policy breach defense after proceedings advanced, falsified by eyewitness FIR and other claims maintaining original version. Result : Petition dismissed.

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)
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/1/2024, titled as Manisha & others vs. Ajay Sauhta & another. It was claimed in the Claim Petition that Sh. Dil Bahadur Kami husband /father father of the petitioners died in an accident on 10.09.2023 at about 6.00 p.m when he was returning back to his home after completing his 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 his head . The successors of deceased Sh. Dil Bahadur Kami son of Seta Kami 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 re


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