2025:HHC:28367 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 178 of 2025 Decided on: 21.08.2025 Mukesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus Gurvasi and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Trigun Singh Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. : Respondent No. 3 ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar, in terms whereof, an application filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment in the claim petition, was allowed by the learned Tribunal. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that a claim petition has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28367 Kinnaur, which is pending adjudication. In terms of the claim petition, the claimants are seeking compensation on account of death of Shri Aakash Kumar, who was the son of the claimants and who unfortunately lost his life in an accident on 13.03.2022, involving a Motorcycle. In terms of the averments made in the claim petition, copy whereof is on record as Annexure-A, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The claim petition was filed in the year 2023. 3. The defence that has been taken in the reply filed to the claim petition by the present petitioner is that it was the deceased, who was driving the ill fated Motorcycle and the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the deceased himself, who had taken away the Motorcycle owned by the petitioner herein without his permission. Further defence of the present petition before the learned Tribunal is that he was not alongwith the deceased and he was sleeping when the Motorcycle was unauthorisedly taken away by the deceased and he was woken up by the police personnel, who informed him about the accident. The reply is dated 22.12.2023. 4. The application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is on record as Annexure-C and the Court has been informed that the same was filed in the month of February, 3 2025:HHC:28367 2025. It is mentioned in the application that the claim filed by the claimants was pending adjudication and no evidence on behalf of the claimants was recorded as yet. The claimants intend to amend head note of the petition by substituting the words by replacing the same as stated in para-4 of the application. The amendment prayed for shall not change the nature of suit and cause of action and same was necessary to arrive at just conclusion and for the passing of the effective judgment. The proposed amendment is as under:- “(a) That the respondent No. 1 namely Mukesh Kumar was owner but at the same time he was driving the motor cycle. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is the necessary party as being owner cum driver of the vehicle bearing No. HP 26A-2059 and the petitioner wants to add the same.” 5. The application was resisted by the present petitioner, who inter alia took the stand that the application was not maintainable as the same shall change the very nature of the claim petition as well as cause of action. Claimants endeavour was to withdraw the admissions earlier made in the claim petition. The application was also belated, filed after a gap of nearly three years. 6. In terms of the impugned order, the application has 4 2025:HHC:28367 been allowed by the learned Tribunal by returning following findings:- “I have heard Id. Counsels for the parties and gone through the record. Admittedly, the petitioner has not mentioned the name of driver and it was left blank and mentioned that it is to be disclosed by the R/C holder respondent No. 1 Mukesh Kumar. It is question of merits who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the objection raised by respondent No. 1 is not ten-able at this stage. Accordingly, the present application is allowed for the reasons stated therein. Amended petition is already on record.” 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Tribunal has not appreciated that the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not meeting the parameters of the statutory provisions. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that no due diligence was pleaded in the application as to why the proposed amendment could not be incorporated at the time of filing of the claim petition because it was not the case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that the amendment was being prayed on the basis of subsequent developments. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that it is 5 2025:HHC:28367 evident that the intent of the claimants was to fill up the lacunae in the claim petition and as this important aspect of the matter was ignored by learned Tribunal, the impugned order was not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted that there was no infirmity in the impugned order for the reason that it was clearly mentioned in the order by the learned Tribunal that as the claimants had not mentioned the name of the driver and it was mentioned that the same was to be disclosed by the RC holder, i.e. the present petitioner, it was on these bases that the order was passed by the learned Tribunal in the interest of justice and as the amendment was necessary to arrive at a fair conclusion in the matter, the order calls for no intervention. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the impugned order as well as other documents on record. 10. It is not in dispute that in the claim petition that was filed in the year 2023, it was not averred by the claimants as to who was driving the Motorcycle when the unfortunate accident took place. In Clause 15 of the claim petition though it was mentioned therein that the owner of the vehicle was the present petitioner and that the name and address of the driver of the vehicle was to be 6 2025:HHC:28367 disclosed by the owner of the vehicle, however, after the petitioner herein took a definite stand in the reply filed by him to the claim petition that the Motorcycle was being driven by the deceased himself, it is not understood as to firstly why the claim petitioners waited for a period of more than two years as from the date of filing of the reply to seek said amendment and further from where the claim petitioners gained knowledge that the Motorcycle was being driven by the present petitioner. The Court is making this observation for the reason that there is no averment made in the application that how they subsequently came to know that the Motorcycle was being driven by the present petitioner. 11. Until and unless, there is a mention in the application as to what due diligence was exercised by the claimants, to satisfy the judicial conscious of the Court, that what was being prayed to be incorporated by way of amendment, could not have been incorporated earlier despite due diligence amendment cannot be allowed. 12. In fact, in terms of the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no amendment shall be allowed by the Court until and unless the party seeking amendment is able to demonstrate that the proposed amendment could not have been incorporated by it earlier in the pleadings despite due diligence 7 2025:HHC:28367 before the commencement of the trial. 13. This Court is aware that under the Motor Accident Claims cases, a liberal attitude has to be adopted because the Act is in the nature of a beneficial legislation, however, bald applications like the one filed in the present case for seeking amendment in the claim petition, cannot be allowed without party demonstrating some reasonable cause as to why the amendment could not be incorporated earlier. In fact, it is apparent and evident that herein the amendment was being prayed to fill up the lacunae in the claim petition and this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order. The observation of the learned Tribunal that the column relating to the identity of the driver of the vehicle was left blank in the claim petition and it was mentioned therein that the same shall be disclosed by the owner of the vehicle, also does not comes to the rescue of the claimants because in the light of the stand taken by the owner of the vehicle that the vehicle was taken away by the deceased without his permission and deceased himself was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner when the unfortunate accident took place, learned Tribunal should have been cautious not to allow this kind of amendment, which was otherwise sought belatedly. 8 2025:HHC:28367 Accordingly, in light of above discussion, this petition is allowed and order dated 26.03.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar in CMP No. 84 of 2025 in MAC Pet. No. 63 of 2022, titled as Gurvasi and another vs. Mukesh Kumar and others, is quashed and set aside. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 21, 2025 (narender)