ORDER NO. 34 

HON’BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, MEMBER

The I.A. bearing No. 33/2017  related to Complaint Case No. CC/94/2011 has been filed by the Complainant with prayer for amendment in the Petition of Complaint to the extent of adducing RTI Application dated 5.9.2011, Death Certificate dated 26.4.2010, Vital Sign Charts dated 23.4.2010 to 25.4.2010, expert-opinion dated 22.4.2013 and 20.10.2014, Memo dated 28.4.2013 of Directorate of Drugs Control, etc.

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that after filing the Complaint concerned, the documents, inclusion of which in the Complaint Petition has been sought for, were obtained and hence, those documents could not be included in the Petition of Complaint at the time of filing of the same.

The Ld. Advocate continues that incorporation of the vital documents concerned in the Petition of Complaint is required for proper adjudication of the Complaint Case.

The Ld. Advocate further submits that the amendment sought for is formal in nature and it shall not change the nature and character of the Complaint.

The Ld. Advocate concludes that in view of the aforesaid submission, the instant I.A. should be allowed.

On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents/OPs, filing written objection, submits that most of the documents, as sought for incorporation by means of amendment application, appears to be dated earlier to the date of filing the Complaint, but the Complainant still did not incorporate those in the Petition of Complaint at the time of filing on 15.9.2011, which conspicuously indicates absence of diligence in this matter on the part of the Complainant.

The Ld. Advocate also submits that the amendment in the Complaint as prayed for would fundamentally change the nature and character of the Complaint Case and that such amendment at the final stage of argument, as is the case on hand, cannot be allowed.

The Ld. Advocate adds that it is well-settled that amendment in the Complaint Case at the stage of argument is not entertainable if absence of due diligence in filing the amendment petition by the petitioner before argument stage, is indicated.

The Ld. Advocate concludes that in view of the aforesaid submission, the instant I.A. should be dismissed.

Heard both the sides, considered their respective submission and perused the materials on records.

The materials on records reveal that the Complaint Case was filed on 15.9.2011 and the Complainant filed a Misc. Application bearing No. 80/2012, which was disposed of on 11.7.2012, i.e. before the Complaint reaches the argument stage.  The Complaint Case was fixed at argument stage by order dated 2.7.2015 of this Commission.

The materials on records also reveal that most of the documents, the incorporation of which in the Petition of Complaint has been sought for by the Applicant, appear to be dated prior to filing the Complaint, such as RTI Application dated 5.9.2011, Death Certificate dated 26.4.2010, Vital Sign Chart dated 23.4.2010 to 25.4.2010, etc., which clearly indicate the absence of due diligence on behalf of the Complainant in filing the instant amendment petition before the argument stage.  In this context, the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Abhay Singh Vs. Magma Leasing Ltd. & Ors., reported in II (2014) CPJ 180, is relevant wherein it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that amendment in the Complaint at the stage of argument is not entertainable if absence of due diligence in filing the amendment petition beyond the argument stage is indicated as in the case on hand.

The contents of the documents sought for incorporation, by amendment in the Petition of Complaint, reveal that the incorporation of those documents are likely to change the nature and character of the Complaint Case concerned and may create the potentiality of prejudice or injustice to the other side, which is also not permissible as per settled principle of law in this respect.  It is also settled that amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances.

The foregoing facts, evidence on records, observations and the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission lead to the conclusion that the amendment sought for is not entertainable at the argument stage of the Complaint Case concerned.

Consequently, the I.A. bearing No. 33/2017 deserves dismissal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Fix 22.3.2018 for hearing of the Complaint Case.  BNAs in the meantime.