The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ln support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in MVOP.No.257 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. UDAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following ORDER: o ORDER: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.480 o7'2025 Heard Mr. K. Uday Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.3. It is represented by leamed counsel for the petitioner that there was no need to issue notices to respondent Nos.l and 2 as tlrey were set ex parte before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for shon'MACT').

2. The petitioner herein filed the present revisron challenging the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by leamed Principal District Judge, Karimnagar in I.A. No.l704 of 2024 (Old IA 408 of 2023) in MVOP No.257 of 2018 dismissing the application filed under Order - VI, Rule - 17 of CPC read with Section 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice (for short'CRP') and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'cPC',).

3. The petitioner herein had filed MVOP No.257 of 2018 before the MACT against the respondents seeking compensation of Rs. 10.00 lakhs for the injuries and disability sustained by him in a road accident. I)uring pendency of the said claim petition, the 2 KL,J CRP No.480 of2025 petitioner filed an application vide I.A. No.l704 of 2024 under Order - VI, Rule - 17 read with l5l of CPC and 28 of CRP to amend the claim petition enhancing the claim from Rs.10.00 lakhs to Rs.50.00 lakhs on the grounds that he was working as driver in TSRTC; that on account of fracture injuries of his leg sustained in a road accident, TSRTC declared him as unfit for the said post and also declared his medical retirement w.e.f.04.02.2019. In view of the same, he lost his earnings of Rs.50,000/- per month permanently till 203 1. Therefore, he sought amendment for enhancing claim of Rs.50.00 lakhs from Rs.10.00 lakhs.

4. Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company opposed the said petition on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any documents in support of his contention and, therefore, sought to dismiss the petition.

5. After hearing both sides, vide order dated 17.12.2024, leamed MACT dismissed the said application observing that the petitioner is at liberty to bring the subsequent happenings to the notice of the Court and, therefore, it was not necessary to amend the claim petition. Y/./ o 3 KL,J CRP No.480 of2025

6. Perusal of record would reveal that originally the petitioner filed the claim petition before the MACT seeking ,:ompensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs under different heads i.e., Rs.20,000/- towards transport to hospital, Rs.10,000/- towards extru nourishment, Rs.2,50,000i- towards medical expenses and Rs.7,20,000/- towards pain and suffering, loss of eaming power and mental agony etc. Now, the said MVOP is coming up for trial. Trial not yet r:ommenced. At that stage, the petitioner had filed the aforesaid I.A. No.l704 of 2024 (Old I.A. No.408 of 2023) seeking to amend the claim petition enhancing compensation amount from Rs.10.00 lakhs to Rs.50.00 lakhs on the ground that the TSRTC declared him as unfit as a driver w.e.f.04.02.2019. The said declaration was during pendency of the said MVOP. IIe lost his monthly eaming of Rs.50,000/- till 2031.

7. It is also apt to note that MACT has power to grant compensation more than the claim. But, it is always proper to afford an opportunity to the claimant to plead and prove the same by producing sure and safe evidence. In the present case, trial not yet commenced. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to seek amendment of claim petition. Mere allowing the said application, no prejudice 4 Kt..J CRP No 460 of2025 would be caused to respondent No.l - Insurance Company, as the petitioner has to prove his claim during trial by adducing cogent evidence. Respondent No. I - Insurance Company will have an opportunity to cross-examine on such aspects.

8. Order - VI, Rule - 17 of CpC deals with .amendment'. There is no dispute with regard to legal position that amendment application can be filed at any stage. It says that the parties should seek for amendment of pleadings before commencement of trial unless they could establish that in spite ofdue diligence, he/she could not find out the same.

9. With regard to settled proposition of law that amendment petition can be filed at any stage of the suit, in Life Insurance Corporation of India y. Sanjeev Builders private Limitedr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court summed up its conclusion in paragraph No.70, which is as under: "(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of t. (2022) SCC Online SC I 128 / o 5 KI,J CRP No.480 of2025 pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The, plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule lZ CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudicatior.r of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, providcd (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side. (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). i I 6 KJ-,J CRP No.460 of2025 ( (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid. defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper technical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin- pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. 7 KL,J CRP No 480 of2025 (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectifu the absence of material parliculars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for. decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause o[ action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, hou,ever, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in ineparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite part;l of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, ra,here the 8 KI.J CRP No.480 of2025 f' amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijaya Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC Online Del. t897)."

10. Moreover, theMotor VehiclesActis abeneficial piece of legislation to provide solace of just compensation to the family of the victim or injured persons. Keeping in view the same in mind, learned MACT should have allowed the petitioner rather than dismissing it. Therefore, impugned order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Court below in I.A. No.74 of 2021 is not on consideration of the said facts and law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

11. The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed seuing aside the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by leamed Principal District Judge, Karimnagar in I.A. No.l704 of 2024 (Old IA 408 of 2023) in MVOP No.257 of 2018. I.A. No.1704 of 2024 (Old IA No.408 of 2023) is allowed permitting the claimant to amend the claim petition enhancing claim from Rs.10.00 lakhs to Rs.50.00 lakhs. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 9 KI,J CRP No.480 of2025 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD R ASSISTANT REGI SECTION OFFICER To ,i ] rrr" pri n ci pa I D istrict J ud g,e, -[?!*I?s"t, 1i"1,-!lf g-s-"r District' 2: o;; iC a.' sRl. K. UDAY kunann, Advocate toPUcI 3. Two CD CoPies Kul./psl \ I t' u +.t<:=: \ I ( J rAre ? z a 21 l{AR 2S5 t f l't. . -rr€ a o HIGH COURT DATED:18/03/2025 ORDER CRP.No.480 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CRJ'WITHOUT COSTS L