Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8872 (UTT)

GANESH GUPTA v. MAST RAM

WPMS/1843/2026 · 2026-07-27

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

UKHC010104592026 2026:UHC:6389 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1843/2026 Ganesh Gupta --Petitioner Versus Mast Ram --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Nalin Saun, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. A Motor Accident Claim Petition is filed by respondents on account of death of their son in a road accident. Petitioners are added as respondent in that claim petition, as the vehicle alleged to be involved in that road accident is owned by petitioner No. 1 and was driven by petitioner No. 2 at the time of accident. 3. Respondents moved an application under Rule 6 Order 17 CPC, seeking leave to amend the claim petition. By that amendment, the place of accident was sought to be corrected, as police in its charge-sheet, filed in respect of FIR, indicated place of accident to be different from the place indicated in the claim petition. That mistake was sought to be corrected by the respondents. The prayer for amendment was allowed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide order dated 27.08.2025, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. This Court is not inclined to UKHC010104592026 2026:UHC:6389 interfere with the order impugned. The nature of proceedings is not going to be changed because of the amendment. The claim petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation. Since the accident resulted in death of son of the respondents, therefore, respondents did not have definite information about the place where accident occurred. That information was received by them through charge-sheet, which was later filed by the police. Thus, it is not a case where some admission is sought to be withdrawn or nature of proceedings would change. Thus, there is no scope for interference. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as costs. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 27.07.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b 08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF 4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.07.27 05:53:50 -07'00'