IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6857 of 2008(N) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1383/2008 IN OS.397/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MANIKKANAMPARAMBIL BUILDING, STATUE JUNCTION, LAYAM ROAD, TRIPPUNITHURA, KOCHI-682 301. BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA RESPONDENTS: 1. E.J.THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, EDEZHATH HOUSE, EROOR NORTH P.O., TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR. 2. JOSE NOYAL THOMAS, S/O.E.J.THOMAS, EDEZHATH HOUSE, EROOR NORTH P.O. TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER E.J.THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, EDEZHATH HOUSE, EROOR NORTH P.O., TRIPPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE. 3. MARY NEHA THOMAS, D/O.E.J.THOMAS, EDEZHATH HOUSE, EROOR NORTH P.O. TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER E.J.THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, EDEZHATH HOUSE, EROOR NORTH P.O., TRIPPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE. 4. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AREA OFFICE, INDIA OIL CORPORATION LTD., LPG SECTION, 1ST FLOOR, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI. 5. SANTHA PANICKER, MANEESHA GAS AGENCY, X/157A, (OLD NO.X/160), PUTHIYA ROAD, EROOR NORTH, TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE. 6. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BRANCH OFFICE NO. 1, DEEPTHI BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM. 7. MATHEW, EDEZHATHU HOUSE, EROOR NORTH, TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE. BY SC.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR IOC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ========================= W.P.(C) NO. 6857 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 29th day of February 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the subordinate judge, Ernakulam in I.A.1383/2008 in O.S.397/2004. The petition is filed by the 5th defendant Insurance Company claiming exclusion under the policy issued by them with reference to the claim made in the case. The allegation in the complaint is to the effect that on account of the leakage of the gas cylinder, when a house wife entered the kitchen with a candle, everything caught fire and ultimately she succumbed to the burned injuries and therefore the legal representative have filed a suit for damages. The liability of the Insurance Company depend upon the contract between the insurer and the insured. It is contended that due to the inadvertence important contentions were omitted to be raised in the written statement. Whether such an amendment though belated is W.P.(C)6857/2008 2 necessary is the question for consideration. I am conscious of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, but for a proper adjudication of the matter, if really the amendment is necessary and if there is no lack of bona fides, the court shall permit such amendments. The apex court has also held that the court shall be very liberal in allowing amendments, especially in the written statement. The Insurance Company is not attempting to incorporate a new case which will detrimentally affect the case of the insured or the plaintiff for the reason the liability or non-liability of the insurance company depends upon the clauses of the contract entered into between the insurer and the insured and it is only to incorporate the same in the form of a pleading an application for amendment is made. So, I feel, the interest of justice requires favourable consideration of such amendments and therefore I set aside the order of the court below and allow the application for amendment though at a belated stage. I make it clear that the plaintiff and the other defendants shall be permitted to file additional written W.P.(C)6857/2008 3 statement or replication, as the case may be, and the matter be disposed of, in accordance with law, thereafter. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE css/