Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4084 (HP)

Jagdev Raj v. Nurjnamo

2025-12-22

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.05.2025, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2), Kullu, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the claimants before the learned Tribunal stands allowed and the claimants have been permitted to amend the claim petition. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that a claim petition is pending adjudication before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which petition was filed in the year 2019. In terms of the contents of the said claim petition, on the fateful day, i.e. on 24.04.2019, the deceased was on his way to his house at village Kalath, from Manali and when he reached Old Age Home, Kalath, suddenly the offending vehicle came from Kullu side, which was being driven by its Driver Jagdev, in a rash and negligent manner and it hit the deceased causing injuries, which resulted in his death. 3. During the pendency of this claim petition, at the stage of arguments, an application was filed by the claimant under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the amendment of the claim petition, copy whereof is on record as Annexure P-5. Contents of the application are reproduced for ready reference herein below:- “1. That the above titled case is pending before this Hon’ble Court Tribunal and next date of hearing is fixed for arguments on 06.09.2024. 2. That at the time of accident, the vehicle No. HP49A-0489 was coming from Manali side, but in the claim petition due to inadvertent omission it is mentioned that the vehicle was coming from Kullu side and now the petitioners wants to amend the petition to the following effects: - a. That in para No. 24(i) in the 5th line the after word "from" and before word "side" the word "Kullu" may kindly be ordered to be replaced with word "Manali" 3. That the aforesaid amendment does not change the nature of the petition and cause of action. 4. That the aforesaid amendments are necessary for the just decision of the case and no prejudice will be caused by the same to the respondents. Amended claim petition is attached. That the aforesaid amendment does not change the nature of the petition and cause of action. 4. That the aforesaid amendments are necessary for the just decision of the case and no prejudice will be caused by the same to the respondents. Amended claim petition is attached. It is therefore prayed that the application may kindly be allowed and the applicant/plaintiff may be allowed to amend the petition, in the interest of justice.” 4. In terms of the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 (Annexure P-6), the application has been allowed by the learned Tribunal and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has assailed this order. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the prayer for amendment of the claim petition was filed belatedly and no reason was given in the application as to why the same was being filed at the stage of arguments. Learned Counsel further submitted that learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the amendment which stood allowed, changes the entire complexion of the case and it has given an opportunity to the claimants not only to improve but also put up a case, completely converse from what was initially pleaded in the claim petition. Learned Counsel further submitted that no due diligence was pleaded and as all these aspects of the matter have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order, the same is bad in the eyes of law. 6. Mr. Vijay Chaudhary Learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2 herein submitted that because the contents of the claim petition were in variance with the First Information Report (FIR) and other documents on record, therefore, just to put the record straight, the application was filed which did not change the complexion of the case and as the amendment was necessary for the right and justful adjudication of the claim petition, the same was rightly allowed by the learned Tribunal. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as other documents on record. 8. In terms of the contents of the claim petition, which was filed in the year 2019, the offending vehicle was on its way from Kullu to Manali. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as other documents on record. 8. In terms of the contents of the claim petition, which was filed in the year 2019, the offending vehicle was on its way from Kullu to Manali. Now in terms of the application that was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the amendment which was proposed in the claim petition was to the effect that the word ‘Kullu’ was to be replaced by word ‘Manali’ and vice versa. This application has been allowed in terms of the impugned order which now leads to a situation that whereas earlier the allegation in the claim petition was that the offending vehicle was on its way from Kullu to Manali, now the claim petition is to the effect that the offending vehicle was on its way from Manali to Kullu. 9. Besides this, a perusal of the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure demonstrates that nothing is mentioned therein as to why the proposed amendment was not incorporated at the time of filing of the claim petition itself or immediately thereafter, in case, there was any mistake in the contents thereof. 10. It is nowhere mentioned in the application as to why it took almost five years to file the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. In fact, all this demonstrates that the amendment was nothing but an attempt to meet the shortcomings in the case and learned Tribunal has allowed the application without appreciating that the proposed amendment in fact changed the entire nature of the case because the direction from which the offending vehicle was driven might be determinative in the learned Tribunal coming to the conclusion as to whether the unfortunate accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver or not. Learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that no due diligence was pleaded and explained in the application. It erred in not appreciating that application was aimed to fill up the lacunae by the claimants in their case at the stage of hearing. 12. Learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that no due diligence was pleaded and explained in the application. It erred in not appreciating that application was aimed to fill up the lacunae by the claimants in their case at the stage of hearing. 12. Therefore, as the impugned order per se is not sustainable in the eyes of law and as the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not meeting the statutory requirements of the said provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, this petition is allowed and impugned order dated 06.05.2025, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2), Kullu, in CMP No. 130 of 2024 is quashed and set aside. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.