NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SHAKUNTLA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE was ordered to be 22nd issued on August, 2006. As per office report, the respondents have been served but no one appears on their behalf.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have also perused the record of the case, particularly, the copy of the FIR as well as the deposition of witnesses, who have appeared in the case. At the stage when the impugned order was passed by the learned Tribunal on 30th June, 2006, the case was already ripe for final arguments after the conclusion of the evidence of the parties. It was at this stage that application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC, was filed by respondents No.1 and 2- claimants in the Claim Petition seeking amendment of para 24 of the Claim Petition. Para 24 of the Claim Petition as originally filed read thus:-

(3.) THE learned Tribunal apparently has erred in allowing the aforesaid amendment only on one ground and that is, that the amendment allowed would change the very nature of the case. Apart from the fact that the proposed amendment was sought to be introduced at a very belated stage, at the stage of arguments in the case, it completely changed the very complexion of the case, the very edifice of the accrual of the cause of action. Whereas in para 24 as originally pleaded the only ground relatable to the accident was that while the deceased was providing passage to a private bus coming from Dharampur side towards Solan, the Car which he was driving fell from the road, in the amended para 24 what was sought to be introduced is that while the passage was being provided to the bus coming from the opposite side, retaining wall/Danga supporting the road on the spot collapsed all of a sudden resulting in the falling down of the Car from the road. Apparently this new ground is clearly linked with an attempt by the claimants-respondents No.1 and 2 to salvage the deceased from any fault of rashness or negligence on his part as also it introduces a ground, viz., collapsing of the retaining wall. This surely has completely changed the complexion of the case and has introduced a cause of action, which was not pleaded by the claimants in the Claim Petition as originally filed.