Karnataka High Court
Smt. B. Revathi vs Sri. Adithya on 7 December, 2021
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.64557 OF 2016 (L-WC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. B. REVATHI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
W/O. LATE CHIKKANNA,
2. MASTER CHANDAN
S/O. LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
SMT. B. REVATHI,
THE PETITIONER NO.1 HEREIN,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.5/42, 3RD MAIN,
3RD CROSS, 3RD STAGE,
SOUTH KUMBARAKOPPALA,
NANDA GOKULA,
MYSURU - 570 002.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. THYAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. ADITHYA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O. VENUGOPAL,
R/AT NO.11/42,
HONGALLI, K.R. SAGAR VILLAGE,
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
2. THE MANAGER
BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL
2
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.363, SRIHARI COMPLEX,
SEETHA VILAS ROAD,
MYSURU - 570 024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD 30.7.2016 PASSED IN ECA NO.9/2014 ON I.A.NO.II BY THE
LEARNED III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER-VI RULE 17 READ WITH
SECTION-151 OF CPC WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 30.07.2016 passed in ECA No.9/2014 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mysuru (for short, 'Labour Court'), whereby the application - I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the claim petition was dismissed by the trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record indicates that pursuant to the demise of one Chikkanna, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 in a fatal road traffic accident that 3 occurred on 20.09.2012, the petitioners' herein preferred a claim petition before the Labour Court seeking compensation towards death of the said Chikkanna. The owner of the private car bearing No.KA-01-N-8083 was arrayed as respondent No.1 while the Insurance Company was arrayed as respondent No.2. During pendency of the proceedings, petitioners filed the aforesaid application - I.A.No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the claim petition by substituting certain averments at page 2, para 1, line No.5. The said application having been opposed by respondent No.2 - Insurance Company, the Labour Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the said application, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Labour Court has dismissed the application solely on the ground that the admission made by the petitioners with regard to the deceased using the vehicle for hire and reward is sought to be withdrawn by inserting proposed amendment by contending that the deceased was going to the temple along with his friends for pooja purpose. However, a perusal of the impugned order will clearly indicate that the Labour Court has failed to consider and appreciate the affidavit filed in support of the application 4 wherein petitioner No.1 has clearly stated that the earlier averments made in the petition with regard to the deceased using the vehicle for hire and reward, was due to the shock and agony suffered by petitioner No.1, who was incharge of the case for herself as well as on behalf of petitioner No.2 / minor and that the petitioner No.1 was not aware of the actual facts and circumstances concerning the accident and she was not in a position to give proper instructions to her counsel to make necessary averments in the petition; it is contended by her that on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and due to oversight and inadvertence, petitioner No.1 has incorrectly stated in the claim petition that the deceased was using the vehicle for hire and reward whereas he had actually used the vehicle for the purpose of going to a temple along with his friends at the time of the accident.
5. In my considered opinion, the explanation offered by the petitioners in the affidavit of petitioner No.1 in support of the application with regard to the incorrect averments made in the original claim petition deserves to be accepted and the reasons assigned by the petitioners appear to be reasonable and probable, particularly when the claim of the petitioners is with regard to the compensation payable towards death of the 5 deceased-Chikkanna, who was the sole breadwinner of the family having left behind petitioner No.1 and their minor son.
6. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Labour Court has adopted a hyper-technical approach in coming to the erroneous conclusion that the admission said to have been made in the claim petition with regard to the deceased using the vehicle for hire and reward cannot be withdrawn without appreciating the well settled principle of law governing amendment of pleadings that admissions in pleadings can be explained by a party - claimant especially in motor vehicle claim petitions which is a beneficial piece of legislation.
7. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the application is not only erroneous and illegal, but, the same has also occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court. In the facts and circumstance of the instant case, having regard to the fact that the proceedings are in relation to claim made by the wife and minor son of the deceased - Chikkanna, for compensation towards his death and consequently, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court deserves to be set aside.
6
8. It is needless to state that this order allowing amendment will not constitute as upholding the claim of the petitioners since no prejudice would be caused to respondent No.2 - Insurance Company, which would have an opportunity not only to file additional statement of objections to the amended petition but also cross-examine the petitioners and other witnesses on all aspect of the matter.
9. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 30.07.2016 passed in ECA No.9/2014 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mysuru, is set aside.
iii) Consequently, I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC stands allowed.
iv) Petitioners to carry out amendment and file amended petition within a period of eight weeks from today.
v) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.2 to file additional statement of objections and to cross-
examine the petitioners and other witnesses on all aspect of the matter.
7
vi) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the parties to adduce such additional oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.
vii) All rival contentions on merits are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
viii) Having regard to the fact that the proceedings are of the year 2014, the Labour Court is directed to conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE SV