Champa @ Mona Naik Vs Bishnupriya Behera

“It is therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the Opp. Parties and after hearing both the sides, be pleased to pass necessary orders by allowing the amendment and setting aside the order dated 29.07.2025 and order dated 15.12.2025 of dismissal on default of the claim application MAC Case No.-45/2019 of the learned 3^rd MACT., Deogarh, in the interest of justice.”

¶14

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, in course of the hearing of the Application, drew the attention of this Court to the fact that upon the death of the injured-claimant (Niladri Nayak @ Naik), the Petitioners initially moved an Application for substitution before the learned Court below. The said Application dated 18.10.2022 was allowed by the learned Court vide order dated 11.09.2023.

¶15

Accordingly, the Petitioners substituted the deceased (Niladri Nayak @ Naik) injured. However, subsequently, the Petitioners filed an Application for amendment of the claim Application pursuant to the death of the injured (Niladri Nayak @ Naik), claiming the death to be one arising out of the injury vide Application dated 09.10.2023.

¶16

The learned Court vide order dated 29.07.2025 having considered the prayer for amendment made by the wife of the deceased declined to allow the same. Upon filing of an Application for adjournment, thereafter, the learned Court vide order dated 15.12.2025 rejected the same too but antedated i.e., with effect from 25.09.2019.

¶17

It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, that if at all the Application for the adjournment was to be rejected, it could not have been antedated, i.e., with effect from 25.09.2019, since the said Application for adjournment was moved on 15.12.2025. He further submits that the learned Court arrived at an erroneous conclusion while rejecting the Petitioners’ Application for amendment filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

¶18

Upon perusal of the impugned orders, as far as the amendment Petition is concerned, it discloses that the Petitioners while making prayer for amendment of his Application filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act inadvertently did not bring the proposed amendment along with the Application. However, the Court, having come to a conclusion that the death is one not arising out of the injury suffered by the injured, declined to allow

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

the amendment. Such conclusion on the part of the Court is a prejudged one. This is because the claimant is free to take the plea basing upon which he stakes claim for compensation. In the event, the Petitioners fail to place proper materials before the Court showing the nexus between the cause of death and the injury sustained arising out of the accident, the Court, could have assessed while evaluating the evidence in accordance with law, in arriving at a conclusion.

¶21

In any case, the absence of the proposed amendment in the Application filed by the Petitioners is an incomplete application which the learned Court ought to have insisted before assuming the same to be one mentioned in the application.

¶22

Coming to the order dated 15.12.2025, apparently, it reveals that the Application of the Petitioners’ for adjournment having been declined, the learned Court has dismissed the case for default of the Petitioners with effect from 25.09.2019 which is antedated and is not sustainable in the eye of the law.

¶23

In view of the above, the conclusions arrived at by the learned Court in both the petitions being not in accordance with law and facts are hereby set aside. Petitioners are directed to file a fresh application for amendment of the Application u/s 166A of the M.V. Act with proposed Amendment within a period of two weeks, failing which the order passed herein shall come to their aid. If such Petition is filed, the learned Court is directed to rehear the matter in respect to the amendment to be brought by the

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

Petitioners afresh and to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶26

With the above observation, the Writ Application stands disposed of.

¶27

(Chittaranjan Dash)

¶28

Judge

¶29

Priyanka