##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 587 of 2025 a/w

CMPMO Nos.586 and 591 of 2025

th

Decided on 29 December 2025

CMPMO No.587 of 2025

Sh. Padam

…Petitioner

Versus

Ajay Sautha and another

…Respondents

CMPMO No.586 of 2025

Karan Singh

…Petitioner

Versus

Ajay Sautha and another

…Respondents

CMPMO No.591 of 2025

Tilak K umar Budha and others

…Petitioners

Versus

Ajay Sautha and another

…Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1

Whether approved for reporting? Yes

For the petitioner(s): Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate,

with Mr. Sahil Sharma, Advocate, for

the petitioners(s) in all the petitions.

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 05:43:45 :::CIS

2

For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for

respondent No.1, in all the petitions.

Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate, for

respondent No.2, in all the petitions.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral

As common issues of fact and law are involved in

these petitions and as similar orders hafve been passed by the

learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissing the

applications filed under Ordert 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.

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 05:43:45 :::CIS

3

According to the petitioners, on the ill-fated day, i.e.,

on 10.09.2023, at about 18.00 hrs., after the injured per.sons

had completed their daily work and were returning to their

residence in the ill-fated vehicle, its driver droveH 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 receiveud injuries, including grievous injuries and

on this count, theoy have claimed compensation in the claim

petitions. C

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

H 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.

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 05:43:45 :::CIS

4

5. It was averred in the application(s) filed under Order

VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code that the petitio.ners

intended to amend the claim petitions by introducing therein the

fact that the injuries were received by the petitioHners 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,u rolled down and crushed the labourers,

including the petitoioners.

6. TChe 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

H 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