The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sri Umesh Marakala

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The petitioner made an application seeking permission to file additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC. The petitioner wants to raise a new ground that the motor cycle bearing No. KA-20-S1911 was not at all involved in the accident in question. The said application is rejected by the Court below. This Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. At an earlier point of time, the petitioner had filed an application for amendment of the written statement filed before the Tribunal below under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. By the said amendment, the petitioner herein wanted to raise a new ground that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident, which means the very fact which is now being raised in the form of additional written statement was already raised by filing an application for amendment. The same was rejected by the trial Court. Such order of rejection was confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13180/2012 (GM-AC). If it is so, it is not open for the petitioner herein to seek similar prayer by using different provision of law. This is a clear case of abuse of law and Court. The petitioner-Insurance Company being the statutory authority should have been more responsible and ought not to have filed repeated applications under different provisions of law for the same relief. The action of the petitioner amounts to Contempt of Court.

In this view of the matter, the petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Costs should be paid to the claimant.