Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Jagdev Raj – Appellant
Versus
Nurjnamo – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges tribunal's allowance of claim petition amendment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner argues late amendment changes case; claimants call it correction. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. belated amendment without delay explanation alters accident direction fundamentally. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. impugned order quashed for failing order 6 rule 17 requirements. (Para 12) |
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, suddenl
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 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 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 to change MV Act claim section allowed post-trial to protect compensation rights despite due diligence requirement.
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 CPC impermissible if changes basic structure of pleadings, withdraws admissions, lacks due diligence, and counters insurer defense post-reply in motor accident claim ....
The court emphasizes the need for proper consideration of procedural amendments in claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Amendments to written statements post-commencement of trial are generally not permitted if they withdraw admissions made, in accordance with legal principles of procedural law.
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.
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
