In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6380 of 2005 Date of decision: May 26, 2009 Sandeep Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. United India Assurance Company Limited and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. Ramswarup, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J By way of present amendment, the petitioner wants to withdraw the material admission with a view to convert the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein referred as 'the Act) to Section 166 of the Act. Previously, the petitioner submitted that on the date of accident, when the claimant along with respondent No.2 had started for his home situated in Sector 12-A, Panchkula on Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-32-8751 as pillion rider, driven by the respondent No.2, reached near Baltana Chowk, Chandigarh-Zirakpur road, then suddenly motor cycle developed mechanical defect and went astray and could not be controlled by the respondent No.2, therefore, the accident took place. However, by way of the amendment, the petitioner wants to add the following lines :- “Respondent No.2 despite request made by claimant did not care and drive the Motorcycle at slow and normal speed. Due to his negligent driving and sudden mechanical defect in the Civil Revision No. 6380 of 2005 -2- *** motorcycle, respondent No.2 failed to control his motorcycle resulting into injuries to the claimant and respondent No.2 also. This accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 and also on account of sudden mechanical defect in this motorcycle.” The amendment sought to be made appears to replace one plea by the other. The petitioner being an eye witness to the occurrence and having first hand knowledge of the accident had found fault with the mechanical defect in the motorcycle. Now by way of the amendment, he wants to say that the accident took place on account of the fault on the part of the respondent No.2. This admission of fact, which was particularly in the knowledge of the claimant could be submitted before the police authorities as well as in the claim petition by the claimant at the very threshold, is now being intentionally changed only for holding the insurance company as liable. Despite the fact that approach of the courts have been made liberal in the case of amendment yet taking of inconsistent or alternative pleas with a particular motive had been discouraged. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in case Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills vs. M/s Ladha Ram, AIR 1977 SC 680 and Heera Lal vs. Kalyan Mal, AIR 1998 SC 618. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered in case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mokkala Chandramma and others, 2003 ACJ 191, wherein it was observed that claimant could seek amendment of their claim application to amend the claim from under Section 163-A to under Section 166 of the Act on the Civil Revision No. 6380 of 2005 -3- *** ground that their counsel before the Tribunal by mistake made application under Section 163-A of the Act. Having perused the aforesaid judgment, the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Here the amendment was allowed on account of the fault of the counsel as he drafted the application under Section 163-A and not under Section 166 to the Act. But in the case in hand, the counsel wants to amend the pleadings whereby he wants to withdraw the earlier admissions made by him and set up a new case which is being discouraged. Under these circumstances, this amendment for conversion of the application from Section 163-A to Section 166 of the Act, by way of withdrawal of the admissions without any positive explanation regarding such withdrawal could not be allowed. Resultantly, while upholding the order of dismissal of the application, this revision petition is dismissed. May 26, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge