In a firm reminder that justice isn’t about nitpicking over technicalities, the Supreme Court has overruled a High Court decision that denied compensation in a motor accident case simply because the vehicle’s make was misidentified.
The error? The vehicle was described as a TATA Sumo instead of a TATA Spacio.
Despite the registration number and all other key details being accurate, the High Court had tossed out the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), all because of that one misstep. But the Supreme Court wasn’t having it.
A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar called out the decision, pointing out that the vehicle bearing registration number KA-31/6059 had been consistently identified throughout the criminal case and claim proceedings. A mere mislabeling of its make didn’t change the fact that the vehicle was involved in the accident.
“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,” the Court ruled, decisively restoring the original compensation.
The claimant, Parameshwar Subray Hegde, will now receive ₹40,000 in compensation, along with 6% annual interest from the date of the original petition—except for the 1380-day delay in approaching the top court, for which the interest is off the table.
The case—Parameshwar Subray Hegde vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr—stands as a caution against letting bureaucratic formalities trump the truth of the matter. A typo on a form shouldn’t outweigh someone’s right to justice.
