spb/- 1 28-10-wp8542-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8542 OF 2010 The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., ... Petitioner. Vs. Smt. Deepali Sagar Magar & Ors. ... Respondents. ­­­ Shri K.M.Hosurkar for the Petitioner. ­­­­­ CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 28TH OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 The claim petition no. 337 of 2005 was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune by Respondent Nos. 1,2,4,and 5 seeking compensation for death of one Sagar Mahadeo Magar. The respondent no.3 is the owner of the vehicle involved in the said accident. The present petitioner, who was opponent no.2, is the New India Assurance Company. The present petitioner had filed written statement and issues were framed. On the basis of the same, the parties were called upon to lead evidence. Evidence was commenced. The claimants completed their evidence. The petitioner wanted to lead evidence and at that stage moved an application for amendment in the written statement to spb/- 2 28-10-wp8542-10.sxw plead that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving license. The said application for amendment was rejected. Hence, this petition. 3 The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the claim petitions under Motor Vehicles Act, as far as possible. In view of the proviso to the Order 6 Rule 17 as amended w.e.f. 01.07.2002, no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial is commenced unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial court. In the present case, the Insurance Company seeks to take a plea that the driver was not having valid driving licence at the time of plying the vehicle. If such a plea would have been taken in the written statement, necessary issue could be framed and the claimants as well as the owner of the vehicle would get an opportunity to produce material to show that the driver was in fact having driving licence. The petitioners had completed their evidence and were not required to produce any such evidence because neither such a plea was taken by the Insurance Company nor any issue was framed on that point. Naturally, for the same reason, the owner of the vehicle was also not called upon to lead such evidence. After that stage has gone, at the fag end of the trial, the petitioner Insurance Company sought to make spb/- 3 28-10-wp8542-10.sxw amendment. It cannot be said that in spite of due diligence, the petitioners could not have raised this plea earlier, at least before the commencement of the trial. 4 In view of this I do not find any fault with the impugned order, rejecting the application of the petitioner, for amendment in written statement. 5 The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. [J.H. BHATIA, J.]