An insurer may add a non-involvement plea, but cannot replace its existing defence.

Respondents 1–3 filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that a goods container insured by the petitioner struck the deceased’s motorcycle and caused his death.

In its written statement, the Insurance Company denied negligence by the container’s driver and pleaded negligence and contributory negligence by the deceased, but did not dispute the container’s involvement.

During trial, evidence from the investigating officer and police records allegedly raised a question about whether the insured vehicle, registration No. BR-03-GB-4881, was involved; the records also referred to an unknown vehicle and vehicle No. WB-32-GB-4881.

The Insurance Company sought, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, to amend its written statement to plead non-involvement and alleged manipulation of records. The Tribunal rejected the application, prompting this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Insurance Company could amend its written statement to plead that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident, based on material said to have emerged during trial.

2. Whether that plea could be added without deleting or substituting the original defence.

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governs amendment of pleadings.

The Court applied the principle that a proposed amendment may be permitted where it is necessary to determine the real controversy, while safeguarding the opposing party from prejudice.

An amendment should not, in the circumstances of this case, be permitted to erase an existing pleading where the opposing party may be entitled to rely on it.

The Court noted that the original written statement proceeded on the basis that the insured vehicle was involved, while disputing its driver’s negligence and attributing negligence to the deceased.

The truth and effect of the evidence said to support non-involvement were matters for the Tribunal to determine on the evidence, not at the amendment stage.

The Court therefore allowed the Insurance Company to add non-involvement as an additional or alternative plea, but not to delete or replace the existing paragraph, preserving the claimants’ ability to rely on the original pleading and respond to the new plea.

The Tribunal’s order rejecting I.A. No. VIII was set aside, and the amendment application was allowed in part: the Insurance Company may incorporate the proposed non-involvement plea as an additional or alternative plea, without deleting the existing paragraph No. 13.

The claimants may file an additional pleading, and the Court expressed no view on the merits of the vehicle-involvement issue.