Orissa High Court
Choudhury Prasanta vs Atmaprakash Narayan Swain & .... ... on 30 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14698 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227of
227 the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Choudhury Prasanta .... Petitioner(s)
Petitioner
Kumar Mishra & Anr.
-versus-
Atmaprakash Narayan Swain & .... Opposite Party
Part (s)
Anr.
Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swarup Kumar Patnaik, Adv.
For Opposite Partyy (s) : Mr. Ashok Das, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:
HEARING:-14.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-30.05.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi,, J.
1. The Petitioner,, by way of the present Writ Petition,, assails the order
dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned First Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Cuttack, whereby hisapplication for amendment of the
claim petition in MAC No.802 of 2019, filed under Order VI Rule 17
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, w
was rejected.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case
caseare asfollows:
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
(i) The wife of Petitioner No.1 and mother of Petitioner No.2, late Smt.
Haripriya Dash, was a retired Senior Judicial Officer.
(ii) On 09.12.2018, at approximately 1:00 PM, while returning to her
residence at Sector 11, C.D.A., Cuttack, from Windsor Palace, Sector
6, C.D.A., Cuttack, in a Fiat Punto bearing registration number OD
OD-
05K-4400, being driven by her engaged driver, who held a valid
driving licence, the petitioner's vehicle was allegedly hit by a Maruti
car bearing registration number OD
OD-19C-8315,
8315, coming from the
opposite direction and being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
(iii) As a result of the collision, Smt. Dash sustaine
sustained
d grievous injuries.
She was initially admitted to Aswini Hospital, Cuttack, and was
subsequently shifted to a hospital in Bhubaneswar
Bhubaneswar, where she
underwent surgery and remained under treatment until her
discharge on 20.12.2018.
(iv) Post-discharge,
discharge, she continue
continued
d to receive physiotherapy and regular
medical supervision. Despite such treatment, she reportedly
experienced persistent pain and stiffness in her right leg and hand,
which impaired her mobility and rendered her dependent on others
for her routine activit
activities.
(v) On account of the injuries and consequential losses sustained, she
instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack,
registered as MAC No. 802 of 2019, seeking compensation
compensat of
₹12,13,094/- with interest.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
(vi) Upon admission of the claim petition, notice was issued to the
opposite parties, namely, the owner and insurer of the alleged
offending vehicle. Opposite Party No.2, the insurer, filed a written
statement admitting the accident
accident and insurance coverage but
disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Opposite Party
No.1, the owner, did not enter appearance and remained ex parte.
(vii) During the pendency of MAC No. 802 of 2019, Smt. Dash contracted
COVID-19
19 amid the pandemic and passed away on 23.10.2021.
(viii) Following her demise, the present petitioners, being her husband
and son, filed an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of
Civil Procedure and were substituted as legal representatives in the
pending claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack.
Cuttack
Upon examining the original claim application, they sought to bring
on record the alleged deterioration in her health following surgery,
including her weakened immunity and consequent vulnerability to
COVID-19, which,
ch, according to them, ultimately led to her death.
Accordingly, they filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the
Code of Civil Procedure on 06.10.2023 before the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Cuttack
Cuttack,, praying for amendment of the claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(ix) The contesting Opposite Party No.2, the insurer, filed an objection
on 13.02.2024, asserting that the amendment application, filed by
persons who were not the original claimants, was not maintainable.
It was
as further contended that the cause of death had no nexus with
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
the accident-related
related injuries and that the proposed amendment
would alter the fundamental character of the claim, thereby causing
serious prejudice to the insurer.
(x) By order dated 11.03.2024, the
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Cuttack, rejected the petitioners' prayer for amendment, inter alia,
on the ground that they had previously stated in their substitution
application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC that the original claimant
had died due to COVID
OVID-19,
19, and could not now take a contradictory
stand by attributing her death to the injuries sustained in the
accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack
Cuttackheld that
the doctrine of approbate and reprobate was attracted in the present
case.
(xi) Aggrieved
eved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court by
way of this writ petition seeking its intervention.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
Petitioners earnestly made the following
submissionss in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack
Cuttack, is thoroughly illegal,
arbitrary, and based on an erroneous appreciation of the materials
available on record, and for these reasons, the same is liable to be set
aside or quashed.
(ii) The Petitioners further contended that the original
claimant/petitioner before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
Cuttack had admittedly passed away during the pendency of the
proceeding, and the present petiti
petitioners
oners were allowed to be
substituted in her place. Upon their substitution, the Petitioners
bona fide filed an application praying to incorporate the factum of
death of the original claimant and her further sufferings from
16.07.2019 onwards till her demis
demisee by way of the proposed
amendment. However, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Cuttack completely misdirected itself in refusing to entertain such
an amendment, which is vital for the proper and fair adjudication of
the claim. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside
aside.
(iii) The Petitioners asserted that the proposed amendment does not
contain any contradictory plea but rather fortifies the factum of the
death of the original claimant/petitioner after the alleged accident.
These facts are subsequ
subsequent
ent developments during the pendency of
the claim application and are in continuation of the earlier plea.
However, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack has
misconstrued this position by holding that the proposed
amendment is hit by the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.
(iv) The Petitioners contended that if the proposed amendment of the
claim application is allowed to be incorporated, it would neither
change the nature and character of the claim nor affect the quantum
of compensation sought, nor woul
wouldd it cause any prejudice to the
Opposite Parties.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
(v) The Petitioners submitted that the plea in the original claim
application was confined solely to the sufferings of the original
claimant caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle, resulting
sulting in her disablement. Her ultimate death, according
to the Petitioners, was due to infection with COVID-19
COVID 19 resulting
from a weakened immune system.
In this context, the applications filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC
and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC do not allege
allege that the accident itself was
the direct cause of death. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding of a
contradictory stand is wholly misplaced. Even assuming, without
admitting, that such a contradiction exists, it is a matter subject to
trial. Hence, the refusa
refusall to entertain the amendment on this ground
is per se illegal, unreasonable, and indicative of complete non
non-
application of judicial mind.
(vi) The Petitioners submitted that the original claimant/petitioner,
during her lifetime, had herself filed the application
application under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Cuttack,, averring her sufferance due to the alleged
accident and claiming compensation against the Opposite Parties.
Her cause of death being a subsequent event during
during the pendency of
the proceeding, it became the legal obligation of the present
petitioners to bring such fact of death on record. Even if the
proposed amendment is contradictory to the earlier plea, the
Opposite Parties have
ve every right to dislodge such assertions
ssertions during
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
the course of trial. Therefore, prejudging this issue at this stage of
the proceeding is impermissible under law.
(vii) The Petitioners contended that it is a settled position of law that,
while dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the Court
should avoid a hyper-technical
hyper technical approach and is ordinarily required
to adopt a liberal stance.
stance The principle governing the amendment of
pleadings
leadings must be applied liberally and not technically. The manner
in which the application seeking the proposed amendment was
disallowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack
Cuttackis
contrary to this settled legal mandate. To buttress this argument, the
t
Petitioner relied on the decisions in Rajesh Kumar Agrawall and
Others v. K.K. Modi1and Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain
PrabandKarini Sabha
Sabha.2
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned
d Counsel for the Opposite Part
Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The original claimant met with an accident on 09.12.2018 and was
discharged after full recovery on 20.12.2018. She subsequently
passed away on 23.10.2021 due to COVID
COVID-19,
19, as categorically
categori
admitted by the petitioners in their substitution application filed
under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. Now, in an apparent bid to secure
enhanced compensation, the petitioners seek to amend the original
MAC case to allege that her death was a consequence of the
(2006) 4 SCC 385.
(1974) 1 SCC 675.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
accident. This plea is inconsistent with their earlier admission,
appears to be an afterthought, and is both factually and legally
unsustainable.
(ii) The substitution application contained no reference whatsoever to
any causal link between the accident and the claimant's death. The
belated amendment, filed nearly two years after her death, seeks to
alter the originally stated cause of death and introduce an
inconsistent version, unsupported by any medical documentation.
The absence of such evidence and the inherent contradiction in the
pleadings fully justified the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Cuttack, in rejecting the amendment.
(iii) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack
Cuttack,, by its order dated
11.03.2024, rightly rejected the application under Order 6 Rule
Ru 17
CPC, noting the contradiction between the substitution petition and
the proposed amendment. It held that petitioners cannot be
permitted to take inconsistent stands on the cause of death. In view
of the above, this writ petition challenging the Tribunal's
Tribunal's well
well-
reasoned order deserves to be dismissed.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on
record.
6. The primary issue for consideration in the
th present writ petition is
whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack erred in
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
rejecting the amendment petition filed by the petitioners under
Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
CPC
7. Order VI Rule 17 CPC governs the amendment of pleadings and
provides that the Court may,
may at any stage of the proceedings, allow
either party
arty to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on
such terms as may be just, provided the amendments are necessary
for determining the real questions in controversy between the
parties. The provision is replicated hereinunder:
"17.
17. Amendment of pl pleadings.--The
The Court may at any
stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or
amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms
as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made
as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the
real questions
tions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court
comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence,
the party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial.
trial."
8. It is a settled principle that courts must adopt a liberal approach
while considering applications for amendment of pleadings.
However, such an approach is not unfettered and must operate
within the boundaries of the statutory framework.
9. The Supreme Court in North Eastern Railway Admn. v. Bhagwan
Das3, observed the following in this regard:
"16. Insofar as the principles which govern the
question of granting
granting or disallowing amendments under
(2008) 8 SCC 511.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time)
are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule
17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any
stage of the proceedings.
In PirgondaHongondaPatil v. KalgondaShidgondaPati
ndaShidgondaPati
l [AIR 1957 SC 363] which still holds the field, it was
held that all amendments ought to be allowed which
satisfy the two conditions : (a) of not working injustice
to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the
purpose of determinin
determining
g the real questions in
controversy between the parties. Amendments should
be refused only where the other party cannot be placed
in the same position as if the pleading had been
originally correct, but the amendment would cause him
an injury which could n
not
ot be compensated in costs.
(Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar
Mohanlal Kalwar [(1990) 1 SCC 166] .)"
10. In a similar vein, the Supreme Court in LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P)
Ltd.4, enumerated the following principles:
"71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
71.2 All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary
for determining the real question in controversy provided
it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.
This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word
"shall",
shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:
71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and
proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.
71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(2022) 16 SCC 1.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other
side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do
not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the
party which confers a right on the other side, and
(c) the amendment
mendment does not raise a time
time-barred
barred claim,
resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable
accrued right (in certain situations).
71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be
allowed unless:
71.4.1. By the amendment, a time
time-barred claim
m is sought to
be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would
be time-barred
barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration.
71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit.
71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or
71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid
defence.
71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings,
the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is
ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the
opposite party can be compensated by costs.
71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-
pin
pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering
a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment
should be allowed.
71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an
additional
tional or a new approach without introducing a time-
time
barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be
allowed even after expiry of limitation.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is
intended to rectify the absence of material particulars
particulars in
the plaint.
71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a
ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is
arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and
the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.
71.10. Where the
he amendment changes the nature of the
suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new
case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the
amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the
amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the
plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded
in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be
allowed."
11. The Supreme Court reaffirmed these principles in Dinesh Goyal v.
Suman Agarwal (Bindal)5 , emphasising that amendments may be
allowed at any stage of the proceedings, provided the amendment is
necessary to determine the real question in controversy" between
the parties.
12. Turning to the specific facts of the present case, the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Cuttack observed that the petitioners, in their
petition for substitution dated 15.02.2021, had stated that the
original petitioner died on 23.10.2021 due to COVID
COVID-19.
19. However, in
the amendment petition, the petitioners took a contradictory stance,
alleging that the death resulted from injuries sustained in the
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615
2615.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
alleged accident. The MACT held that such inconsistent pleadings
could not be permitted and refused the amendment petition.
13. However, this Court finds that all amendments necessary for
determining the real ccontroversy
ontroversy between the parties ought to be
allowed, provided they do not cause prejudice to the Opposite
Parties. In the present case, the amendment sought merely
elaborates on the cause of death of the original petitioner and its
connection to the injurie
injuriess sustained in the accident, which lies at the
core of the claim. The earlier reference to COVID-19
COVID 19 cannot be
treated as an unequivocal admission that precludes the petitioners
from clarifying their position in the interest of justice.
14. Rules of procedure aare
re the handmaidens of justice, not its mistress.
The amendment in question neither changes the nature of the claim
nor sets up a new case. It only places before the Court all relevant
facts necessary for proper adjudication. Furthermore, no prejudice is
caused
used to the Opposite Parties, as they retain the right to dislodge
such assertions during the course of the trial.
V. CONCLUSION:
15. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds it appropriate to intervene.
The order dated 11.03.2024 rejecting the amendment application
appli by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, is set aside. The
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, is directed to proceed
with adjudication on merits in accordance with the amended
pleadings.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Panigrahi
Vacation Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 30th May, 2025
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
