Sujit Narayan Prasad,J. - (1.) The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the District Judge-I-cumPresiding Officer, MACT, Jamtara in MACT Case No. 01 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, a petition filed under Order 6 Rule XVII dated 06.03.2013 on behalf of the respondent no.2 seeking therein amendment to the written statement to the effect that death of one Munshi Marandi was not caused by the dumper bearing registration no.HR 26-6228. Besides, the deceased was driving his motorcycle without any driving license and without helmet and the said motorcycle had also no valid papers for running on road but the same has been rejected.
(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that:- The respondent nos.1 to 6 filed an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on the ground of death of husband of respondent no.1, namely, Munshi Marandi who succumbed to an injury in a motor accident occurred while he was driving motorcycle which was hit by dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228 on 30.11.2009 at village Basnali, Jamtara. The Tribunal has issued notice to the petitioner who happens to be the owner of the dumper bearing no. HR 26-6228 and also issued notice to the respondent no.7, Branch Manager of Oriental Insurance Company, Deoghar Branch as the said dumper is insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, Deoghar Branch. The petitioner herein has filed written statement taking the plea that the respondent no.2 is the owner and the respondent no.3 is the driver of dumper bearing no. HR 26-6228, which reads as hereunder:- (1) "That the Respondent no.2 is the owner and Respondent no.3 is the driver of Dumper bearing no.HR 26-6228 (2) That this MACT Case is filed claiming death compensation by the claimants arising out of accident occurred on 30/11/2009, while Munshi Marandi was dashed by Dumpher bearing Regd. No.HR 26-6228 (3) That the Dumpher bearing Regd. No.HR 26-6228 was insured by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Deoghar Branch having Policy No.332402/31/2009/2971 effective from 27/02/2009 to 26/02/2010. (4) That on the date of Accident, i.e., on 30/11/2009, the vehicle was insured and hence, the Oriental Insurance Co. Limited is liable to compensate the claimants. (5) That the Original Insurance Certificate is attached herewith. (6) That the driver Vijay Yadav has also a valid driving License on the date of Accident Xerox copy of the Driving License is attached. (7) That in view of the facts, these respondents are not liable to compensate the claimants. It is, therefore, submitted that the proposed award be awarded against the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and these respondents may be exonerated from their liability and for this act of kindness, the Respondents shall ever pray." The written statement has also been field by the Oriental Insurance Company, wherefrom, it is evident that the vehicle in question which involved in the accident was dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228 which was commercial vehicle and for the commercial vehicle, valid and effective insurance policy particular valid and effective route permit issued by the competent authority as well as valid and effective driving license are the mandatory requirement of law and plying of vehicle without permit is infraction and if owner of the offending vehicle violates the terms and conditions of the policy under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as such, the respondent is not liable to make any payment of compensation to the claimants. It is further evident by referring to F.I.R. of Jamtara P.S. Case No.195 of 2009 dated 12.01.2009 lodged by Parsan Marandi brother of the deceased stating inter-alia therein that his brother Munshi Marandi died in road accident by a dumper while his brother was lying died on road with his Rajdoot Motor Cycle No.WNJ-4247. The petitioner, herein, has filed an application for amendment in written statement praying therein to allow him to make necessary amendment in the written statement filed to the effect which reads as hereunder:- "The death of Munshi Marandi was not caused by Dumper No. HR 26-6228. Besides, the deceased was driving his motorcycle without any Driving License and without helmet and the said Motorcycle had also no valid papers for running on road." The rejoinder to the aforesaid petition was filed by the claimants stating inter-alia therein that the amendment sought for in the written statement is contradictory to his assertion and admission made in his written statement, where the petitioner has admitted that on 30.11.2009, the deceased Munshi Marandi was dashed by Dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228. The Tribunal after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the factual aspect has passed the order on 22.04.2013 by holding that the respondent nos.2 and 3, namely, Naval Kishore Yadav and Vijay Yadav have filed joint written statement on 30.07.2010. At present, four witnesses on behalf of the claimants were already examined and the case is pending for evidence and at that belated stage, the amendment petition has been filed for amendment in his written statement. The Tribunal, on perusal of paragraph-2 of written statement of respondent nos.2 and 3 dated 30.07.2010 has found that this MACT case is filed claiming death compensation by the claimants arising out of accident occurred on 30.11.2009, while Munshi Marandi was dashed by dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228. It has further been considered that the respondent nos.2 and 3 has not specifically denied in the said paragraph that the deceased Munshi Marandi was not dashed with the dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228 but in the proposed amendment, the respondent no.2 wants to change his version. Accordingly, taking into consideration the position of law, the admission made in plaint or written statement cannot be withdrawn subsequently by amendment and since the respondent no.2 already admitted a fact, therefore, he cannot be allowed to retract back from his admission. The aforesaid order has been questioned in this petition.
(3.) Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted in his defence by referring to the statement made in the written statement that there is no specific admission on his part about causing of accident by dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228. It has been submitted that the Tribunal has come to wrong conclusion by looking to the statement made at paragraph-2 of the written statement. According to him, the statement made at paragraph-2 is nothing but the reiteration of the prayer of the claimants and as such, it cannot be said that the statement made therein is an admission about causing of accident by dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228. In view thereof, it is not a question of retracting back of admission rather what has been proposed in the written statement seeking amendment in the earlier written statement which is totally a new fact about the denial of the claim of involvement of the aforesaid vehicle in the accident. ;