Supreme Court: Imagine being denied something that rightfully belongs to you just because of a minor technical detail. Frustrating, right? This is precisely what happened when a compensation claim was rejected due to a small difference in the vehicle’s make, despite all key details remaining the same. However, the Supreme Court stepped in to uphold justice, ensuring that a rightful claim could not be denied on such flimsy grounds.
A Simple Mistake Led to an Unfair Rejection
In a case involving a motor accident compensation claim, a victim was initially granted Rs. 40,000/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). However, when the matter reached the High Court, the claim was set aside simply because of a discrepancy in the vehicle’s make. The vehicle was initially mentioned as a TATA Spacio, but it was later found to be a TATA Sumo. Despite the registration number and other essential details matching perfectly, the High Court refused to uphold the claim.
This decision left the victim without compensation, even though the accident had been proven and the vehicle involved was correctly identified. It seemed unfair that a minor misdescription could outweigh the reality of the case.
Supreme Court Powerful Intervention
Realizing the injustice in this decision, the Supreme Court took a firm stance. A bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar pointed out that the registration number of the vehicle KA-31/6059 remained consistent throughout the case. Since the vehicle was already involved in a criminal investigation related to the accident, there was no valid reason to dismiss the compensation claim based on a slight misdescription of the make. The Court firmly stated that such a minor discrepancy should not be treated as a ground to reject a claim when all crucial details remain unchanged. As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and restored the MACT’s award of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. The Court also ruled that the claimant would receive interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition. However, due to a delay of 1380 days in approaching the Supreme Court, interest for that period would not be granted.
A Victory for Common Sense and Justice
This judgment is not just about one individual it sends a strong message that legal technicalities should never override genuine justice. A person who has suffered due to an accident should not be deprived of compensation just because of a minor clerical mistake.
By setting aside the High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that fairness and logic should prevail over rigid technicalities. This decision will serve as an important precedent, ensuring that rightful claims are not dismissed due to minor errors that do not change the fundamental facts of the case.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult legal professionals for specific guidance on similar matters.
Also Read:
Evolution and Scope of Administrative Law
Supreme Court Slams Overpriced Lawyers: Justice Must Be Accessible to All
