Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in a Motor Accident Claim Petition, challenged an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 08/02/2019 rejecting their application for correction of a mistake in the judgment dated 28/11/2018. The claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of deceased Baban Natha Dhule under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 23,36,000/- for his death in a motor vehicle accident on 09/10/2011. The Tribunal allowed the claim and foisted the entire liability on the petitioners. The mistake was that the Tribunal described petitioner No.2 (the driver) as the owner of the offending vehicle, whereas he was only the driver, and the actual owner was not a party. The petitioners filed an application for correction, which was rejected. The High Court observed that the mistake was a clerical error apparent on the face of the record, and the Tribunal had inherent power to correct it. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Tribunal to correct the judgment by substituting the word 'owner' with 'driver' and to fix liability on the insurance company (respondent No.1) as per law. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Clerical Error - Correction of Judgment - The Tribunal had mistakenly described the driver (petitioner No.2) as the owner of the vehicle in the judgment, while the actual owner was not a party. The High Court held that such a mistake is a clerical error that can be corrected under the inherent powers of the Tribunal, and directed the Tribunal to correct the judgment and fix liability on the insurance company. (Paras 1-10) B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Liability of Driver and Owner - The driver of a vehicle cannot be held liable as the owner unless he is the owner. The Tribunal's error in treating the driver as the owner led to an unjust liability. The High Court set aside the order rejecting the correction application and remanded the matter for correction. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can correct a clerical mistake in its judgment where the driver was wrongly described as the owner of the vehicle, and whether the insurance company can be held liable for the compensation.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 08/02/2019, and directed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to correct the judgment dated 28/11/2018 by substituting the word 'owner' with 'driver' and to fix liability on the insurance company (respondent No.1) as per law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Clerical error in judgment can be corrected under inherent powers
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- liability of owner and driver
- insurance company liability
