The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC cannot be permitted if they fundamentally alter the nature of the claim, particularly when such change is sought after the respondent has filed a defence and the petitioner fails to demonstrate due diligence. This judgment clarifies the limits of judicial discretion in permitting amendments in motor accident claims where factual inconsistencies emerge post-filing.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, legal heirs of Sh. Jai Bahadur Budha, filed Claim Petition No. MACT/3/2024 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Rohru, seeking compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- plus 9% interest for the death of the deceased in a road accident on 10.09.2023. The original claim alleged that the deceased was a passenger in a truck (HP63-7198) driven negligently by Dinesh, which overturned, causing fatal head injuries. The owner of the vehicle, Ajay Sautha, and the insurer, New India Assurance Company Ltd., contested the claim on grounds of policy breach due to unauthorized passenger carriage and invalid driving licence.
Key Facts
- The accident occurred on 10.09.2023 at approximately 6:00 p.m. near Khera Kenchi, District Shimla.
- The vehicle involved was a heavy goods vehicle (truck-tipper) registered for carrying construction material, with a seating capacity of three persons only.
- Seven persons, including the driver, were in the vehicle at the time of the accident; three died, four were injured.
- The deceased was employed as a labourer for construction of a retaining wall beneath the main road.
- The insurer contended the vehicle was carrying unauthorized gratuitous passengers, violating policy terms.
- An FIR was lodged by Karan Singh, one of the injured claimants (MACT/4/2024), stating that the deceased and others were seated in the back of the tipper at the time of the accident.
- The petitioners initially claimed the deceased was a passenger; later sought to amend the petition to claim he was crushed by the vehicle while working on the retaining wall.
Procedural History
- 10.09.2023: Accident occurred.
- 2024: Claim Petition No. MACT/3/2024 filed by petitioners alleging deceased was a passenger in the vehicle.
- 2024: New India Assurance Company filed reply denying liability, citing breach of insurance policy due to unauthorized passenger carriage.
- 2025: Petitioners filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment to claim they were not passengers but were crushed by the vehicle while working on the retaining wall.
- 28.08.2025: Additional District Judge (II), Shimla, dismissed the amendment application.
- 29.12.2025: Co-ordinate Bench of Himachal HC dismissed similar amendment applications in MACT/4/2024, MACT/5/2024, and MACT/6/2024.
- 12.03.2026: Present petition under Article 227 dismissed by Justice Romesh Verma.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued they were rustic labourers unaware of legal nuances; amendment merely corrected factual error; trial had not commenced; no prejudice to respondents. Respondent (New India Assurance): Contended amendment sought to withdraw a material admission, change the cause of action, and was filed in connivance with the owner to evade liability; contradicted by FIR and claim of co-claimant Karan Singh. Respondent (Owner): Supported petitioners’ amendment.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 28.08.2025 dismissing their amendment application and permission to amend the claim petition to reflect that the deceased was not a passenger but was crushed by the vehicle while working on the retaining wall.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC can be allowed when it seeks to replace a material factual admission - that the deceased was a passenger - with an entirely new version - that he was crushed while working on the roadside - thereby altering the fundamental character of the claim and contradicting evidence already on record.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate, argued that the petitioners were illiterate labourers who did not understand the legal implications of their original pleading. He contended that the amendment merely corrected a factual misstatement and did not introduce a new cause of action, but clarified the true sequence of events. He relied on the principle that amendments are to be freely allowed to determine the real questions in controversy, and that trial had not commenced. He emphasized that the insurer had not yet led evidence and could rebut the new version.
For the Respondent/State
Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate for the insurer, argued that the proposed amendment sought to withdraw a clear admission in the original petition - that the deceased was a passenger - and replace it with a contradictory narrative. He highlighted that the co-claimant Karan Singh, an eyewitness and injured party, had filed an FIR and claim petition stating the deceased was seated in the vehicle. He contended that the amendment was mala fide, filed only after the insurer raised the defence of policy breach, and constituted an attempt to circumvent liability. He cited Basavaraj v. Indira to argue that such amendments are impermissible if they change the fundamental character of the suit.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the proposed amendment and its impact on the pleadings. It noted that the original claim petition alleged the deceased was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident. The proposed amendment sought to replace this with a claim that the deceased was not in the vehicle at all, but was crushed by it while working on the retaining wall. This was not a mere clarification but a complete reversal of the factual foundation of the claim.
"The proposed amendment shall change the very basic structure of the claim petition. The nature and claim of the claim petition is being tried to be changed and the admission which is there in the claim petition is tried to be withdrawn."
The Court emphasized that Order 6 Rule 17 CPC permits amendments only if they serve the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy, and prohibits amendments after trial commences unless due diligence is proven. The Court found no assertion of due diligence in the petitioners’ application. The amendment was filed only after the insurer had filed its detailed defence, indicating strategic timing.
The Court also relied on its co-ordinate Bench’s earlier decision in similar cases, which held that:
"The petitioners intended to withdraw the earlier factual narration with regard to the occurrence of the incident by altering it from the factum of them being seated in the ill-fated tipper to working at the site and being crushed by the tipper."
The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim of illiteracy as a justification, observing that even an illiterate person can distinguish between being seated in a vehicle and being crushed by it while working nearby. The Court further noted that the FIR filed by Karan Singh, a surviving claimant and eyewitness, directly contradicted the proposed amendment, rendering it unreliable and potentially mala fide.
The Court concluded that the amendment, if allowed, would prejudice the insurer’s defence based on policy conditions and create confusion in the adjudication of liability. It held that what cannot be done directly - filing a fresh suit with a new cause of action - cannot be done indirectly through amendment.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the order dated 28.08.2025 dismissing the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The petitioners’ attempt to alter the claim from passenger injury to being crushed while working was held impermissible as it changed the fundamental character of the suit. The Court affirmed that no due diligence was established, and the amendment was filed after the insurer had filed its defence, indicating mala fide intent. The petitioners are barred from pursuing the revised version of the claim in this proceeding.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Amendments Cannot Rewrite the Cause of Action
- Practitioners must ensure the initial claim petition accurately reflects the factual basis of the accident; post-filing amendments cannot be used to substitute a new cause of action.
- If the claimant was not in the vehicle, this must be pleaded from the outset - not introduced after the insurer raises a policy defence.
Due Diligence Must Be Explicitly Pleaded
- Applications for amendment after defence is filed must specifically state why the facts could not have been raised earlier.
- Vague assertions of illiteracy or lack of legal knowledge are insufficient without corroborating evidence or explanation.
Contradictory Evidence Undermines Amendment Requests
- When an eyewitness claimant has already filed an FIR or claim petition stating a different version, courts will view subsequent amendments with suspicion.
- Courts will not permit amendments that contradict sworn statements or official records, even if filed under the guise of correction.
Insurance Defences Are Not a License to Amend
- Insurers’ policy-based defences (e.g., unauthorized passengers) do not entitle claimants to rewrite their pleadings.
- The burden remains on the claimant to prove their version of events truthfully and consistently from the outset.
