W.P.No.33071/2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO.33071/2019 (GM - AC)

BETWEEN:

HEMANTHA GIRISH

S/O SHANMUKAYYA,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

127/4, 17^TH MAIN,

MARENAHALLI LAKE,

JAYANAGAR,

BENGALURU.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.R.L.UDAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,

HOSUR-2, SALES YARD 77,

SIP COT ELECTRONIC COMPLEX,

SIP COT PHASE-II

HOSUR, TAMILNADU-635 109.

2.

IFFCO-TOKIYO GENERAL

INSURANCE CO., LTD.,

SRI SHANTHI TOWERS,

5^TH FLOOR, NO.141, 3^RD MAIN,

EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT,

KASTURINAGAR,

BENGALURU-560 001.

REP.BY ITS MANAGER.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2

R1-V/O DT: 5.9.2019 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED

WITH)

W.P.No.33071/2019

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 17^TH JUNE, 2019

PASSED ON IA [AMDNEMENT APPLICATION] FILED UNDER VI

RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 1908, IN MVC NO.5144/2016 BY THE COURT

OF VIII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & XXXIII ACMM,

MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1.

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a

direction to set aside the order dated 17.06.2019

passed on application filed under Order VI Rule 17

r/w Section 151 of CPC in MVC.No.5144/2016 by

VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge & XXXIII ACMM,

Member, MACT, Bengaluru, vide Annexure-A.

2.

By way of the aforesaid application, the petitioner has

sought for amendment of the claim petition to change

the number of offending vehicle from TN-70/TC-292

to TN-70/TC-301. The said application has filed when

the case was posted for arguments. The application

came to be dismissed on the ground that as the

W.P.No.33071/2019

3

matter is at the stage of arguments, the application

could not be considered at that stage. It is aggrieved

by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3.

Sri.Jwala Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that the mistake has occurred in

mentioning the number of the offending vehicle. The

fact that the vehicle in chassis form were traveling in

a convoy, a mistake occurred which is a genuine and

bonafide mistake, resulting in showing the wrong

number of the vehicle. It is submitted that the

vehicle bearing No.TN-70/TC-301 being involved in

the accident is not in dispute and occurrence of the

accident is also not in dispute. The proceedings

before the MACT being one, which is beneficial to the

injured have to be liberally construed.

4.

Sri.Pradeep B., learned counsel for respondent

No.2/Insurance Company would, however, oppose

the above petition contending that, it is only after the

Insurance Company led its evidence, the application

for amendment was filed, which shows malafide

W.P.No.33071/2019

4

intention

on

the

part

of

the

petitioner.

The

application being a post trial amendment, the

petitioner has not established any due diligence and

therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the

application and this Court ought not to interfere in

the matter.

5.

Heard Sri.Jwala Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel for

respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

6.

A perusal of the application indicates that the

petitioner claims that the number of vehicle was by

mistake not given properly. It is not in dispute that

the accident had occurred and that the vehicle

bearing No.TN-70/TC-301 was involved in the said

accident. The motor vehicle accident report indicates

and establishes the occurrence of the accident and

damage caused to the vehicle. The reason provided by

the petitioner is that the vehicle being in a chassis

form traveling in a convoy appears to be genuine and

bonafi