Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | Widow’s Remarriage May Impact Dependency: P&H High Court Allows Amendment in Motor Accident Case Pleading Second Marriage

"Effect of Remarriage on Compensation Is a Triable Issue, Not to Be Rejected at Pleading Stage" –  Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a civil revision petition filed by Gurmeet Singh and another, setting aside a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) order that had rejected their application for amendment of the written statement. The amendment sought to incorporate the fact of remarriage of the claimant-widow, Babita Rani, which, according to the petitioners, would have a direct bearing on the computation of dependency in the motor accident compensation case.

The matter arose from a motor accident claim filed by Babita Rani (respondent no.1) along with her minor son and the deceased’s parents for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following the death of her husband Karan Kumar in a road accident on 2 March 2023. The petitioners, respondents in the original claim, filed a written statement contesting the claim. During Babita Rani's cross-examination, a suggestion was put to her that she had remarried, which she denied. Subsequently, the petitioners moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend their written statement, pleading that Babita Rani had remarried Kapil Sachdeva and the child had been adopted by him, affecting the nature and extent of dependency.

The Tribunal rejected the amendment application, prompting the present revision.

Justice Alka Sarin, allowing the petition, held that the proposed amendment went to the root of the matter, namely the issue of dependency, and was sought before the petitioners led their evidence. Citing the guiding principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (1) RCR (Civil) 851], the Court observed:

“All amendments which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy and do not cause any prejudice to the other side ought to be allowed.”

It was further clarified that whether or not a widow who has remarried is entitled to compensation after remarriage is a question of merit to be adjudicated at trial. The Court held that such an issue cannot be pre-decided while determining whether an amendment to pleadings should be permitted:

“The argument of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 that it is a settled law even a widow who remarried has a right to get compensation... is not a question to be gone into at this stage as that would be touching upon the merits of the case.”

The Court acknowledged that the respondents would not suffer prejudice from the amendment, as they would have the opportunity to rebut the plea during trial. It was also noted that if the Tribunal deemed it appropriate, an issue could be framed, the burden of which would lie on the petitioners to establish the fact of remarriage.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Anju Mukhi & Anr. vs. Satish K. Bhatia & Ors., (2010) 15 SCC 630, the petitioners argued that a widow’s entitlement to compensation must be considered in light of her remarriage. The respondents, however, relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nidhi Goel & Ors., 2018 (1) ACC 445, to argue that remarriage does not automatically disentitle a claimant from compensation.

The High Court refrained from making any observation on the legal effect of remarriage on compensation, observing that:

“The Court cannot delve into the merits of the plea being raised while deciding an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.”

Setting aside the Tribunal’s order dated 24 April 2025, the Court allowed the amendment, observing that the petitioners had moved the application at the appropriate stage—prior to leading their evidence—and that the issue was foundational for determining compensation.

The Tribunal was directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments. All pending applications were also disposed of.

Date of Decision: 23 May 2025