SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 29658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Manjula W/o. Ramappa – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director TNSTC, Salem – Respondent
CRP No. 5570 of 2025|CMP No.27922 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.Santhosh Kumar
For the Respondents: No appearance

Amendment to change MV Act claim section allowed post-trial to protect compensation rights despite due diligence requirement.

Headnote:The petitioners filed a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act for death in an accident but sought amendment to Section 166 due to erroneous initial filing. Trial court dismissed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, denying amendment post-trial commencement despite due diligence claim. Court found opportunity essential to protect compensation rights. Issues framed around amendment permissibility post-trial and due diligence. Ratio: Amendment allowed as denial defeats valuable rights despite trial commencement, prioritizing substantive justice. Civil revision allowed, trial court order set aside, liberty to respondent for counter, MCOP directed for disposal within three months.

Table of Content
1. petitioners sought amendment from section 163a to 166 mv act post-trial denial. (Para 2 , 3)
2. amendment allowed to protect compensation despite trial commencement. (Para 4)

ORDER

There is no appearance on the side of the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners have filed an application in I.A.No.02 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to carry out necessary amendments in the original claim petition and the same was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have preferred the above revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that originally the petitioners have filed a claim petition under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, but, later they found that they ought to have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act as the son of the first petitioner died in the accident. But, the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the petition holding that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court is satisfied that, in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage opportunity has to be given to the parties since the first petitioner lost her son and if opportunity is not given, valuable right to get the compensation will be defeated.

5. In the light of the above, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.2 of

2024 is set aside and I.A.No.2 of 2024 is allowed and the civil revision petition is allowed. Liberty is granted to the respondent to file their counter and thereafter proceed with the matter. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Krishnagiri Special District Court for Motor Accident Claim Cases, Krishnagiri is directed to dispose of MCOP T.V.THAMILSELVI.,J sr No.300 of 2022 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top