Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2445 (RAJ)

Ram Singh v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

2011-11-15

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 25th April, 2007, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Tonk allowed the application of the respondent-claimants filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/non applicant no.2 as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 - Oriental Insurance Company and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the order sheet recorded by the trial court on 28.2.2007 and canvassed that after hearing final arguments of both the parties, the case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 2nd March, 2007. Suddenly on 2nd March, 2007, the respondent-claimants filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking an amendment in the claim petition, which was allowed by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further canvassed that the sought for amendment changed the entire texture of the claim petition causing serious prejudice to the petitioner as he happens to be the registered owner of the motor cycle allegedly entailed in the accident. He also canvassed that the case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment and at such a belated stage the amendment ought not to have been allowed by the learned trial court as it is categorically provided under Rule 17 Order 6 CPC that an amendment cannot be permitted after the trial of the claim petition begins. The impugned order, thus, in view of these facts cannot be said to be correct in the eye of law and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has also agreed with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has also reiterated the same argument that the amendment has been allowed at a belated stage when the judgment was to be pronounced in the claim petition by the court, hence the impugned order may be set-aside. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the impugned order as also the contents of claim petition, it is noticed that the amendment sought for by the respondents-claimants was that the word "motor-cycle" in place of "rickshaw" at item no. 27 of the claim petition be substituted and the word "Nahi" at para no. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the impugned order as also the contents of claim petition, it is noticed that the amendment sought for by the respondents-claimants was that the word "motor-cycle" in place of "rickshaw" at item no. 27 of the claim petition be substituted and the word "Nahi" at para no. 10 of the same be deleted. Both the amendments were allowed. After amendment, if we read para 27, then we find that the whole texture of the claim petition gets changed. Earlier it was the motor-cycle, which is alleged to have hit the Rickshaw, whereupon the deceased was sitting. After an amendment, it has been endeavoured to prove that the deceased was not sitting on rickshaw but he was sitting on the motor-cycle, which was being driven by the non claimant no.1 Kailash Chand Sharma, whose name had already been deleted from the array of non claimants. Before amendment, if we look at the text of para 10, it is found that the deceased was not sitting on the motor cycle, which caused the accident, but after the deletion of word "Nahi", the same para suggests that he was sitting on the motor cycle, which caused accident and was entailed in the accident itself. The amendment sought for, thus, changes the whole texture of the claim petition. It cannot easily be accepted that such an important fact must have skipped from the mind of the claimants or their counsel, who drafted the claim petition. Sitting on rickshaw or sitting on motor-cycle is a matter of fact. Either the deceased was sitting on rickshaw or he was sitting on motor cycle, it is such a fact, which cannot escape from the memory of the claimants or their counsel, who drafted the petition. It cannot be digested easily that the mistake of writing rickshaw instead of motor cycle was committed while typing the para 27 of the petition. It also cannot be accepted easily that the word "Nahi" was inadvertently typed in para 10 of the claim petition because if we read the whole claim petition prior to the amendment, then the word "Nahi" in para no. 10 is found to have been rightly written, which is corresponding to the text of para no. 27, wherein the deceased was shown to have been sitting on rickshaw. 10 is found to have been rightly written, which is corresponding to the text of para no. 27, wherein the deceased was shown to have been sitting on rickshaw. The word "Nahi" can be deleted only when he is shown to have been sitting on motor cycle. It seems to be a calculated amendment, which probably struck the mind of the learned counsel for the claimants, when the case was fixed for pronouncement of the judgment and he anticipated a failure in the case. The said amendment has altogether changed the nature of the claim petition. Such a mischief, which is found to have been occurred in the mind of the claimants, must not be permitted to perpetuate. It is found to be a clear case of abuse of the process of court. Such an abuse of process of law also should not be allowed to continue in future. Learned trial court, undeniably and undisputably committed a grave error in allowing the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. It seems that the learned trial court sans applying his mind to the facts of the case, arbitrarily allowed the claim petition in routine. The impugned order is found to be totally perverse and capricious, which deserves to be set-aside. 6. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25th April, 2007 stands set-aside.Petition Allowed. *******