- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3594 WP No. 35341 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 35341 OF 2017 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: HARISH.K.S. S/O SANJEEVA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT DHARKASTH HOUSE, KODIMBADI VILLAGE, POST KODIMBADI, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARSHA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN.B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMACHANDRA RAO S/O N.V.KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT SWASTHIKA, VALTHAJE HOUSE, KEDIAL VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574 201. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, AMJAYS COMPLEX, MANGALORE D.K.DISTRICT-574 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3594 WP No. 35341 of 2017 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Harsha., counsel on behalf of Sri.Sachin.B.S., for the petitioner and Sri.B.Pradeep., counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person. 2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on 16.08.2017. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 3. The short facts are these: The petitioner filed a claim petition in MVC No.62/2013 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation against the owner of the vehicle and the insurer. The respondents filed written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3594 WP No. 35341 of 2017 As the matter stood thus, in the year 2016 i.e., on 08.03.2016, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.1 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking following amendment: Proposed Amendment: 1. In page 1 of petition; Delete Sec. 166 and insert Sec.163-A. 2. In page 2, column-6 delete Rs.12,000/- per month and insert Rs.3,300/- per month. 3. In page 3, column-22, para-1 delete averment "a Santro Car bearing No. KA-19/MB-8816 driven by 1st respondent rashly and negligently dashed to motor cycle on going to his wrong side i.e., right side of the road" and insert, "a santro car bearing No. KA-19/MB-8816 came from opposite side and collided with the mother cycle of petitioner". 4. Page 4 para 3 delete "petitioner was getting monthly income of Rs.12,000/- p.m" and insert "petitioner is restricting his monthly income to Rs.3,300/- pm." 5. Page 5 para 6, delete "The above accident took place on account of fast and negligent driving of 1st respondent" and insert "The above accident took place due to the collision of above vehicle." The respondents filed objections to the application. The Trial Court vide order dated 06.07.2017 rejected the application - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3594 WP No. 35341 of 2017 with costs. This order is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 4. Counsel Sri.Harsha., for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to the law. Next, he submits that the order of rejection is contrary to the provision under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. A further submission is made that the petitioner is only seeking conversion of his petition under Section 166 to 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the order is liable to be set-aside. Counsel therefore, submits that the Writ Petition may be allowed. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in GURUANNA VADI VS. GENERAL MANAGER, KSRTC - MFA No.5377/1998 disposed of on 04.10.2001. 5. Counsel Sri.B.Pradeep., submits that the claim petition was filed in the year 2013 and the petitioner filed the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3594 WP No. 35341 of 2017 amendment application in the year 2016. There is an inordinate delay in filing the application. He argued by saying that the petitioner attempted to insert new facts to the claim petition. Counsel justified the order passed by the Trial Court and submits that the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 7. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Trial Court requires interference. 8. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. It is not in dispute that the claim petition was filed in the year 2013 and the respondents filed written statement, however the amendment application was filed in the year 2016. The true copy of the amendment application is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-F. A careful perusal of the proposed amendment would reflect that the petitioner is trying to insert new facts to the claim petition. The Trial Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly rejected the application. I find no grounds to interfere - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3594 WP No. 35341 of 2017 with the order of the Trial Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision referred to supra, but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid decision. 9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23