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 and prejudicing insurer post-reply.

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 Vehicles Act, on the ground that they had suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased driver, namely, Dinesh, who was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No.HP-63-7189 (Truck-Tipper), in which, the petitioners, who were labourers, were travelling. According to the petitioners, on the ill-fated day, i.e., on 10.09.2023, at about 18.00 hrs., after the injured persons had completed their daily work and were returning to their residence in the ill-fated vehicle, its driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result whereof, he could not control the vehicle and it rolled 400 to 500 meters down into a ditch. The accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased driver. The petitioners received injuries, including grievous injuries and on this count, they have claimed compensation in the claim petitions.

3. During the pendency of these claim petitions, separate applications were filed by all the petitioners, in their respective claim petitions under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , in terms whereof, an amendment was prayed for in the claim petitions.

4. For facts, this Court is referring to the pleadings in CMPMO No.587 of 2025, titled Padam versus Ajay Sautha and another.

5. It was averred in the application(s) filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE that the petitioners intended to amend the claim petitions by introducing therein the fact that the injuries were received by the petitioners while they were working as labourers at the site, where they were engaged for the construction of a retaining wall at Khera Kenchi, just beneath the main road, when the offending vehicle, which was being driven by the driver, namely, Dinesh in a rash and negligent manner, rolled down and crushed the labourers, including the petitioners.

6. The reasons spelled out in the application as to why the amendment was being prayed for was that the applicants were rustic labourers and they were not able to understand the language of the Court and the contents of the petitions were not read over and explained to the petitioners at the time when they appended their signatures to the claim petitions. It was also mentioned in the application that the petitions filed before the learned Tribunal were on the basis of an FIR, whereas, the fact of the matter was that the labourers were not occupants of the of the ill-fated vehicle, as they were deployed for the construction of a retaining wall, beneath the main road and were crushed by the vehicle, when it rolled down the main road.

7. In terms of the impugned order, said application has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal by returning the following findings:-

“I have heard both the sides and have perused