Supreme Court: Motor Accident Claim Can't Be Rejected Merely Because Vehicle's Make Was Wrongly Described

Motor Accident Claims - 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. (Para 4)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

J.K. MAHESHWARI; J., ARAVIND KUMAR; J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025.

PARAMESHWAR SUBRAY HEGDE Vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR

Dated: February 10, 2025

1. Leave granted.

2. Arising out of the judgment of the High Court dated 18.04.2017 passed in MFA No.

103716 of 2015 setting aside the award dated 20.08.2015 of the 1

st Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Sirsi in M.V.C. No. 121 of 2014 directing to pay Rs.40,000/- in a case of

grievous injury along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim

petition, the present appeal has been filed.

3. On perusal of the findings recorded in the judgment of the High Court, it is clear that

because of the change of make of the vehicle, i.e., TATA Sumo in place of TATA Spacio,

the claim as allowed by the Tribunal has been rejected by setting aside the award.

4. 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.

5. Reverting on the issue of grant of compensation, it is seen that the claimant had not

preferred any appeal before the High Court challenging the adequacy of the award passed

by the Tribunal. Therefore, we restore the compensation as directed by the Tribunal i.e.,

Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) along with interest.

6. It is to observe that for the period of delay in approaching this Court (1052 + 328 =

1380 days), the claimant would not get interest on the said amount and the compensation

is directed be paid by the first respondent-insurer with interest excluding reducing the

period referred to above.

7. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of.

8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Print Page