Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Padam – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Sautha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. original claims: injuries as negligent tipper passengers; amendment to crushed labourers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. amendment changes accident genesis, new cause, prejudices insurer. (Para 7) |
| 3. petitioners urge illiteracy, fir errors; insurer opposes bad faith. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. order vi rule 17 bars amendments altering cause of action. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 5. rejects illiteracy excuse; post-reply change indicates mala fides. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. upholds dismissal; petitions fail order vi rule 17. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
As common issues of fact and law are involved in these petitions and as similar orders have been passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissing the applications filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE by the petitioners for amending the claim petitions, the cases were heard together and are being disposed of vide common judgment.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these petitions are that all the petitioners herein have independently approached the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Veh
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 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 impermissible at arguments stage without delay explanation or due diligence, if it alters case complexion impacting negligence determination.
Amendment to change MV Act claim section allowed post-trial to protect compensation rights despite due diligence requirement.
Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act allows for compensation without the need to prove negligence, reflecting the Act's beneficial nature for claimants.
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.
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
