The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a motor accident claim cannot be rejected merely because of a discrepancy in the make of the vehicle involved, as long as the registration number and other essential details are correctly mentioned. The Court emphasized that such minor errors should not deprive victims of their rightful compensation.
The case in question involved Parameshwar Subray Hegde, who had filed a claim for compensation after suffering grievous injuries in a motor accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) had awarded him Rs. 40,000/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition. However, the High Court later set aside this award, citing a discrepancy in the make of the vehicle involved in the accident.
The High Court noted that the vehicle was described as a TATA Spacio in the claim petition, whereas it was actually a TATA Sumo. Based on this discrepancy, the High Court rejected the claim, despite the fact that the registration number of the vehicle (KA-31/6059) and other key details remained consistent.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, overturned the High Court’s decision. The bench observed:
“After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the registration number of the offending vehicle is KA-31/6059, was found involved in the criminal case which is one and the same, the finding of the High Court cannot be sustained. Even mere misdescription of the make of the vehicle could not have been treated as consistency or a ground to dismiss the claim petition itself, particularly when there is no change in the registration number of the offending vehicle. Therefore, impugned judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside.”
Read Also:- Motor Accident Claims | Supreme Court Clarifies 'Legal Representative' Need Not Be Immediate Family
The Court clarified that a minor error in describing the vehicle’s make should not be a reason to dismiss a legitimate claim, especially when the registration number and other critical details are accurate.
The Supreme Court restored the compensation awarded by the MACT, directing the insurance company to pay Rs. 40,000/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition. However, the Court also noted that the claimant would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay in approaching the Court, which amounted to 1380 days.
Case Title: Parameshwar Subray Hegde vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Manjunath Meled, Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi, Mr. Ganesh Kumar R.
Respondent’s Counsel: Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Mr. Prang Newmai, Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, Mr. Prasad Hegde, Mr. Gn Hegde
