S.Ram Dhurv Vs Hembai

¶1

-1-

¶2

2025:CGHC:24456

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 549 of 2019

¶6

1 - S.Ram Dhurv S/o Dolatram Dhurv Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bhava, Police Station Patewa, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh........................(Driver Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C G 06 C/6051)

¶7

2 - Topsingh S/o Dolatram Dhurv Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bhava, Police Station Patewa , Tehsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh........................(Owner Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C G 06 C/6051)

¶8

... Appellant (s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 – Smt. Hembai W/o Late Tejram Pradhan Aged About 44 Years

¶11

2 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Late Tejram Pradhan Aged About 24 Years

¶12

3 - Ku. Trivani S/o Late Tejram Pradhan Aged About 22 Years

¶13

All are R/o Ward No. 04, Village- Rumekel, Police Station Patewa, Tehsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh...(Claimants)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : None appears though served

¶16

_______________________________________________________

¶17

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.06.23 10:23:37 +0530

¶18

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶19

Judgment On Board

¶20

-2-

¶21

16/06/2025

¶22

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by owner and driver of the offending vehicle against the award dated 04.02.2019 passed in Claim Case No. H 179/2016 by learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, (CG) whereby the liability to satisfy amount of compensation has been fastened upon appellants/non-applicant No. 1 & 2 in the claim application preferred by respondents/claimants.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this appeal is filed by owner and driver of the offending vehicle challenging the impugned award primarily on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the written statement filed by them. He submits that the appellants had taken specific plea that on the date of accident, deceased Tejram Pradhan was carrying excessive goods on vehicle and accident occurred because he lost control over the vehicle and he himself fell down and suffered injuries.

¶24

No other ground is raised by learned counsel for the appellants before this Court .

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records of claim case.

¶26

Respondents No. 1 to 3 are reported to be served, however, there is no representation on their behalf.

¶27

So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with respect to filing of application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking

¶28

-3-

¶29

amendment in the written statement to the claim application submitted by appellants/ non-applicants therein is concerned, learned Tribunal vide order dated 16.01.2019 has considered the pleadings made in the application for amendment as also submission made by learned counsel for the applicants therein and has dismissed the same recording that appellants/non-applicants No. 1 & 2 therein were served with the notice, they were represented through their Advocate, after 5 months from the date of appearance, written statement was filed and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is filed after conclusion of trial at the stage of final hearing of the claim case, no satisfactory explanation was offered in filing of application for amendment with delay and accordingly dismissed the same vide order dated 16.01.2019.

¶30

Application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is forming part of the record of Claim Case. The said application was filed by the appellants/nonapplicants No. 1 & 2 therein on 14.01.2019.

¶31

Perusal of the order-sheet of claim case would show that case was fixed for final arguments vide order dated 08.01.2019 and application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the written statement is filed at the belated stage. Though application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC can be filed at any stage of trial, however, the proviso inserted to provision under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC by way of amendment, envisages that when any application for amendment is filed after commencement of trial, it is for the party making application to satisfy the Court that in spite of due diligence the party could not

¶32

-4-

¶33

have raised the point/matter before commencement of trial. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the application recording that no satisfactory explanation was offered for condoning the delay in filing of application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC at the belated stage. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the appellants could not able to point out as to why the pleadings made in the amendment application which are sought to be added in the written statement to the claim application could not be brought on record even after due diligence.

¶34

In the aforementioned facts of case, I do not find any error in dismissing the application seeking amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. As the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has already been dismissed pleadings made in that application cannot be read into for the purpose of deciding claim application filed by respondents No.1 to 3/claimants. No other ground is raised by learned counsel for the appellants before this Court during course of argument to challenge the impugned award .

¶35

Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleading and evidence recorded a finding that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1. In reply, nonapplicants pleaded that non-applicant No.1 denied the fact of accident while he driving motorcycle. The accident was witnessed by Satya Kumar Bhoi (A.W.2). This witness in his evidence stated about the manner in which accident occurred. The finding of Tribunal of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by non-applicant No.1 is based on evidence.

¶36

-5-

¶37

11.Hence, I do not find any error in the order dated 16.01.2019 whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment has been dismissed by the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶38

I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award.

¶39

For the foregoing discussions, appeal is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶42

Praveen

S.Ram Dhurv v. Hembai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ram Dhurv v. Hembai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kirtan Rana Vs Mukesh Ram

Santdeen Pahadi Vs Jugnath Yadav

Charan Xalxo Vs Santosh Shah

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rameshwari Khairwar

Ramnarayan Sahu Vs Anil Ram Rawani

Smt. Rameshwari Khairwar Vs Chandresh Rajput