Amendment of pleadings in claims is permissible if necessary for justice, but should not change the nature of the case or prejudice other parties.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

The Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner/Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.2 before the Court below) challenging the order darted 21.10.2016 passed in M.A.C.T. No.11 of 2015, pending before the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-3rd M.A.C.T., Kuchinda, vide which the application of the Claimants/Petitioners under Order-6, Rule-17 of C.P.C. for amendment of the petition has been allowed by the Court below with an observation that proposed amendment is formal in nature and will not change the nature and character of the petition in any manner.

2. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Insurance Company, drawing attention of this Court to the petition filed by the Applicants/Claimants (present Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4) in M.A.C.T. No.11 of 2015 so also the Objection filed by the present Petitioner (Opposite Party No.2 before the Court below) as at Annexure-3 submits, a specific plea was taken in Column No.23 of the Claim Petition that the deceased Ananta @ Hemanta Munda, being a labourer, was sitting in the left side of the driver of the offending tractor. In response to the said averments Written Statement has been filed by his client taking the specific stand therein that as no premium was taken on the head of labour and sitting and travelling in the tractor is also not permissible, the Petitioner/Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.2 before the Court below) is not liable for the claim made in M.A.C.T. No.11 of 2015. After disclosing the said stand of the Insurance Company, intentionally the petition for amendment was filed taking a complete different stand therein that at the time of accident, the deceased was standing at left side near the culvert of the turning point of the road at village Guljipali forest. The offending tractor dashed the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the road and died on the spot.

3. Mr. Dutta further draws attention of this Court to the Charge Sheet and submits, one Susanta Kumar Biswal was driving the said offending tractor which was proceeding for collection of sand engaging labourers namely, Nidhu Pradhan, Jayadev Rohidas @ Petu and the deceased Ananta @ Hemanta Munda on the R.D. road at Guljipali forest. He further submits, after disclosing the defence plea of the Insurance Company in its Written Statement, to patch up the lacuna and to ensure the claim petition to be maintainable as against the Insurance Company, in view of the specific stand as to non-coverage of the labourer in the insurance policy, intentionally, petition for amendment was filed taking a complete different plea as to alleged standing of the deceased in the left side near the culvert of the turning point of the road, where the accident occurred. Despite taking specific plea in the Objection filed in M.A.C.T. No.11 of 2015, the Court below allowed the said petition for amendment on a plea that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and the same will not change the nature and character of the petition in any manner. It was further observed that proposed amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter between the parties. Mr. Dutta submits, the impugned order dated 21.10.2016 passed in M.A.C.T. No.11 of 2015, being perverse and amounting to change of nature and character of the claim petition, if the said order is not interfered with; his client (Insurance Company) will be seriously prejudiced.

4. Mr. Subudhi, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4, draws attention of this Court to the F.I.R. dated 04.11.2014 lodged by one Debendra Sahu and submits, the said F.I.R. does not d