Amendment under Order VI Rule 17 impermissible at arguments stage without delay explanation or due diligence, if it alters case complexion impacting negligence determination.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.05.2025, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2), Kullu, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the claimants before the learned Tribunal stands allowed and the claimants have been permitted to amend the claim petition.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that a claim petition is pending adjudication before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which petition was filed in the year 2019. In terms of the contents of the said claim petition, on the fateful day, i.e. on 24.04.2019, the deceased was on his way to his house at village Kalath, from Manali and when he reached Old Age Home, Kalath, suddenly the offending vehicle came from Kullu side, which was being driven by its Driver Jagdev, in a rash and negligent manner and it hit the deceased causing injuries, which resulted in his death.

3. During the pendency of this claim petition, at the stage of arguments, an application was filed by the claimant under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the amendment of the claim petition, copy whereof is on record as Annexure P-5. Contents of the application are reproduced for ready reference herein below:-

“1. That the above titled case is pending before this Hon’ble Court Tribunal and next date of hearing is fixed for arguments on 06.09.2024.

2. That at the time of accident, the vehicle No. HP49A-0489 was coming from Manali side, but in the claim petition due to inadvertent omission it is mentioned that the vehicle was coming from Kullu side and now the petitioners wants to amend the petition to the following effects: -

a. That in para No. 24(i) in the 5th line the after word "from" and before word "side" the word "Kullu" may kindly be ordered to be replaced with word "Manali"

3. That the aforesaid amendment does not change the nature of the petition and cause of action.

4. That the aforesaid amendments are necessary for the just decision of the case and no prejudice will be caused by the same to the respondents.

Amended claim petition is attached.

It is therefore prayed that the application may kindly be allowed and the applicant/plaintiff may be allowed to amend the petition, in the interest of justice.”

4. In terms of the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 (Annexure P-6), the application has been allowed by the learned Tribunal and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has assailed this order.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the prayer for amendment of the claim petition was filed belatedly and no reason was given in the application as to why the same was being filed at the stage of arguments. Learned Counsel further submitted that learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the amendment which stood allowed, changes the entire complexion of the case and it has given an opportunity to the claimants not only to improve but also put up a case, completely converse from what was initially pleaded in the claim petition. Learned Counsel further submitted that no due diligence was pleaded and as all these aspects of the matter have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order, the same is bad in the eyes of law.

6. Mr. Vijay Chaudhary Learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2 herein submitted that because the contents of the claim petition were in var