Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1928 (RAJ)

Ramlal Suthar v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.

2011-09-07

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2011
Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court finds no reason to consider interference in the order dated 30.1.2010 as passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh in Claim Case No.530/2007 (549/2009) whereby the Tribunal has rejected an application seeking leave to amend the reply as moved by the petitioner, who is defending the claim for compen-sation in his capacity as owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. 2. It appears that the claimant, who is claiming compensation for the loss suffered due to the injuries sustained in the vehicular accident, stated his status qua the vehicle in question in para No.10 of the claim application in the manner that he was travelling therein as a labourer. Such an averment has specifically been denied by the present petitioner (non-applicant No.2) in the following terms: - ^^fd izkFkZuk i= dh pj.k la[;k 10 xyr gS] izkFkhZ mÙkjnkrk ds okgu ij dHkh Hkh etnwj ds :i esa dk;Zjr ugha Fkk u fnukad 23-4-2007 dks gh etnqj ds :i esa fu;qä Fkk] lkjs dFku xyr vafdr fd, gSA** 3. After filing of pleadings and framing of issues, the matter proceeded in the trial and when it reached the stage of the non2 applicant's evidence, the petitioner (non-applicant No.2) moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code suggesting that such averments in para No.10 of the reply had occurred for a typographical error and that the correct averment sought to be taken was in the following form: - ^^fd izkFkZuk i= dh pj.k la[;k 10 lgh gS] izkFkhZ mÙkjnkrk ds okgu ij etnwj ds :i esa dk;Zjr Fkk ,oa fnukad 23-4-2007 dks gh etnqj ds :i esa fu;qä FkkA** 4. The Tribunal, by its order dated 30.01.2010, has rejected the application so moved with the observations, inter alia, that the suggested mistake could not be that of a typographical error particularly when specific averment had been taken in no uncertain terms. The Tribunal has further observed that the matter was at the stage of the non-applicant's evidence and there was no reason to grant the prayer for amendment at such an advanced stage of the proceedings. 5. The Tribunal has further observed that the matter was at the stage of the non-applicant's evidence and there was no reason to grant the prayer for amendment at such an advanced stage of the proceedings. 5. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal had not been justified in rejecting the prayer for amendment without considering that all such amendments that are necessary for determination of the real question are liberally allowed; and the amendment in question being necessary for determination of the real questions, ought to have been allowed. It is also submitted that delay by itself could not have been taken as the ground sufficient for rejection of the prayer for amendment. The submission do not make out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction. 6. As noticed, there had been a categorical averment taken by the claimant about the capacity in which he was travelling in the vehicle in question and then, specifically and categorically, the averments so taken in the claim application have been denied in the reply by the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter has proceeded in the trial and as noticed, the claimant's evidence is already over. At the given stage of proceedings, an attempt on the part of petitioner in seeking not only to withdraw the averments as taken in para No.10 of the claim petition but to take the averments squarely contrary to the assertion made earlier can only be said to be an afterthought and falling short of bona fide. The averment as originally taken by the petitioner in the reply had been clear and unambiguous wherein the capacity qua the vehicle in question as asserted by the claimant has specifically been denied. The said averments in the reply cannot be considered suffering from any such error that could be referred to the process of typing; and cannot be described as typographical error. 7. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the learned Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the baseless application moved by the petitioner. The petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.