Motor Accident Claim Can't Be Rejected Merely Because Vehicle's Make Was Wrongly Described: Supreme Court
Mere discrepancy in the make of the vehicle is not a ground for rejecting the claim, particularly when the Registration Number was correctly cited.;
The Supreme Court observed that discrepancy in the make of the vehicle cannot be a ground to deny a rightful claim when the vehicle's registration number and other key details are consistent and correctly mentioned. Because of the change of make of the vehicle, i.e., TATA Sumo in place of TATA Spacio, the claim as allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was rejected by the High Court...
The Supreme Court observed that discrepancy in the make of the vehicle cannot be a ground to deny a rightful claim when the vehicle's registration number and other key details are consistent and correctly mentioned.
Because of the change of make of the vehicle, i.e., TATA Sumo in place of TATA Spacio, the claim as allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was rejected by the High Court upon setting aside the claim awarded by the Tribunal even though the vehicle's registration and other key details remained the same.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar 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.”
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment. The Court restored the MACT's award of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition, but clarified that he would not receive the interest for the period of delay in approaching this Court i.e., 1380 days.
Case Title: PARAMESHWAR SUBRAY HEGDE VERSUS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 334
Click here to read/download the order
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Manjunath Meled, Adv. Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Kumar R., AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR Mr. Prasad Hegde, Adv. Mr. Gn Hegde, Adv.
