This court dismissed an application challenging the allowance of an amendment to a plaint in a compensation suit for vehicle damage. The High Court held the change was a harmless correction of an innocent mistake.
The impugned order allowing amendment of plaint was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1937
OP(C).No. 167 of 2015 (O)
OS 660/2012 SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.
PETITIONER(S):
1. MANAGER,
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., XL/35994, ELIZABETH ALEXANDER MEMORIAL BUILDINGS, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, MARINE DRIVE,
BY ADVS.SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC
DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY
RESPONDENT:
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.RAJAKRISHNAN, VII/1766, JAWAHAR ROAD, KOOVAPADAM, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 682 002.
BY ADVS. SRI.N.M.MADHU
SRI.P.P.HARRIS
SMT.C.S.RAJANI
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
OP(C).No. 167 of 2015 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 850 OF 2014 IN O.S.NO. 660 OF 2012 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - V, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P2: COPY OF THE B DIARY IN O.S.NO. 660 OF 2012 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-V, ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.(C)No.167 of 2015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are the defendants in OS.660 of 2012 of Sub Court, Ernakulam. The respondent/plaintiff had insured a vehicle with the petitioners. In an accident it sustained damage. The suit is for compensation. The respondent filed an application to amend the plaint, which has been allowed by the learned Sub Judge by the impugned order.
“The plaintiff has incurred a sum of Rs.8,35,756.56/(Rupees eight lakhs thirty five thousand seven hundred and fifty six and fifty six paisa only) for the repair accessories and services of the above said car”. This has been sought to be substituted by “The plaintiff has to pay a sum of Rs.8,35,756.56/- (Rupees eight lakhs thirty five thousand seven hundred and fifty six and fifty six paisa only) for the repair accessories and services of the above said car”. Along with the plaint the respondent has
2
O.P.(C)No.167 of 2015
produced an estimate prepared by a workshop owner. He has not produce any bill. So it appears that his case is that he has to spend the amount claimed in the plaint to repair the car. The statement in the plaint appears to be due to an innocent mistake. There was nothing wrong in allowing the respondent to amend the plaint.
In the result this OP is dismissed. The petitioner will be given an opportunity to file additional written statement after the amendment of the plaint.
sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE
R.AV
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned Sub Judge was correct in allowing the amendment of plaint to correct an alleged innocent grammatical mistake.
MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
R. VIJAYAKUMAR
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
