BENGALURU: A mere typographical error that creeps in while mentioning the vehicle number in a complaint pertaining to an accident case cannot be a ground to come to any other conclusion, the high court observed in a recent order.
Upholding the Rs 2 lakh compensation with 6% interest awarded to P Suma by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Mysuru, Justice HP Sandesh pointed out that there is no evidence placed before the court to support the insurer’s argument that the vehicle is falsely implicated. The fact that the offending vehicle (car) bearing no. KA-55-M-0178 was insured with the second respondent (insurer) is not in dispute and the same has been taken note of by the tribunal, the judge noted while dismissing the appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company.
Around 10.30am on November 27, 2009, Suma, a senior typist at the agricultural office in Mysuru city and seven months’ pregnant then, was riding a Scooty to her workplace when a speeding car dashed against her vehicle near BN Rao Bahaddur Institute gate, Hunsur Double Road. As a result, she fell down and sustained injuries. She was shifted to BM Hospital and was in ICU for eight days.
Claiming that she had spent a huge amount for the treatment and recuperation, Suma had moved the tribunal seeking compensation, citing Rs 20,000 a month as her income. The registration number of the offending car was mentioned as no. KA-55-N-0178, instead of KA-55-M-0178 .
On February 20, 2016, the tribunal awarded her Rs 2.04 lakh compensation with 6% interest.
Challenging the award, the insurer argued there is no policy with regard to vehicle no. KA-55-N-0178 and it is a case of duplication on the part of the claimant.
On the other hand, Suma argued there was a typographical error
… Read the rest