Remanded

Minati Lenka v. Amulya Kumar Mohapatra

Orissa HC13 Dec 2023WP(C)/24965/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of an application under Section 152 CPC to correct a typographical error in a judgment regarding policy number in a motor accident claim. The High Court held the Tribunal erred in rejecting it and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for correction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to District Judge-cum-MAT for correction of typographical error in policy number within a week; Insurance Company directed to pay award within two weeks.

Minati Lenka Vs Amulya Kumar Mohapatra — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.24965 of 2023

¶3

Minati Lenka & Ors. ....... Petitioners
-Versus-
Amulya Kumar Mohapatra
& Anr. ....... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Mohanty,
Advocate
For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr.A.A. Khan,
Advocate
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. S.K. Sahoo,
Advocate
...................
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing and Judgment: 13.12.2023

S.K. MISHRA, J.

¶4

1. The Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioners to set aside the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the District Judge-cum-1^st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kendrapara, in M.A.C No.97 of 2017 (Annexure-6) vide which the court below rejected the petition filed by the Petitioners under Section-152 of the CPC for correction of the Policy

¶5

Number in paragraph 12 of the judgment.

¶6

Page 1 of 6

¶7

2. The brief background facts, which led to file the present Writ Petition, is that on 06.04.2017 while the son of the Petitioner Nos.1 & 2,

¶8

who is the brother of the Petitioner No.3, was going in his motor cycle bearing Registration No.OD-02-AE-2915 as a pillion rider from Chaudakulat on Chaudakulat-Gogua road, a truck bearing registration no.OR-09-E-9967 came from Chaudakulat side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle from behind. Due to the said accident the deceased was crushed to death and his motor cycle was badly

¶9

damaged. The occurrence took place at about 6.30 A.M..

¶10

3. Therefore, the Petitioners filed a claim application before the court below claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the Opposite Parties and the said claim case was registered as MAC No.97 of 2017.

¶11

4. On being noticed, the Opposite Parties appeared in the said case and contested the same on merit. However, after analyzing the documents and other evidence on record, the Court below allowed the said case vide judgment dated 16.12.2022 and directed the Opposite Party

¶12

No.2/Insurance Company (present O.P.No.2) to pay the compensation amount Rs.12,28,500/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application i.e. 10.11.2017 till its realization.

¶13

5. After pronouncement of the said judgment, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.2 for payment of compensation

¶14

Page 2 of 6

¶15

amount in terms of the said judgment. However, while scrutinizing the judgment, it was detected that in page no.7 of the said judgment, in 7^th

¶16

line of Para-12, the Policy Number has been wrongly typed as “345304/31/2017/78” instead of “345304/31/2017/5078”.

¶17

6. The case of the Petitioners is that the error crept in the said judgment, as there was inadvertent typographical error /omission crept in serial no.12 of the claim petition, where the policy number of the offending vehicle was inadvertently mentioned as 345304/31/2017/78

¶18

instead of 345304/31/2017/5078. It is further case of the Petitioners that when the owner of the offending vehicle filed its written statement, in Para-9 of the WS, the said mistake was also admitted by the Opposite Parties. However, the Opposite Party No.2/Insurance Company, while filling its Written Statement, though did not mention the policy number of the offending vehicle, but did not dispute as to the coverage of the offending vehicle under the said policy number.

¶19

7. However, on being advised by the officers of the Opposite Party

¶20

No.2 Company to get the said mistake rectified from the court below, the petitioners moved an application on 11.04.2023 under Section 152 of the

¶21

CPC. The Court below rejected the said petition on the ground that the prayer made in the petition is beyond the scope under Section-152 of the

¶22

Page 3 of 6

¶23

Code of Civil Procedure. At this juncture it would be apt to reproduce

¶24

below section-152 of CPC for ready reference:-

¶25

“152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders – Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.”

¶26

8. Though the said mistake was not disputed by the present Opposite Party No.2/Insurance Company before the court below, while passing the impugned order, the court below relied on the averments made in the claim petition so also the written statement filed by the owner of the offending vehicle (O.P.No.1) before the court below and mechanically rejected the said petition on the ground that the prayer made in the application doesn’t come under purview of the Section-152 of the CPC, which confers power on the Court to correct the arithmetical/clerical mistakes, crept in the judgment and order.

¶27

9. It has further been observed that incorrect Policy Number mentioned in the judgment, is not a clerical mistake or arithmetical mistake on the part of the Tribunal, as it simply reproduced it from the claim application so also written statement filed by the Opposite Party No-1. Accordingly, the court below rejected the Petition of the claimants.

¶28

Page 4 of 6

¶29

10. Law is well settled that non-mentioning of relevant provision of law or mentioning of a wrong provision of law in an application/petition cannot be and should not be a ground to reject the petition. It is the duty of the Court which dispenses justice, to apply the correct provisions of law so as to deliver the relief to the party, who is entitled to it.

¶30

11. Admittedly, Policy Number was indicated as 345304/31/2017/ 78

¶31

instead of 345304/31/2017/ 5078 and the Insurance Company did not dispute in its WS as to coverage of the offending vehicle under the said Policy Number . Though the last four digits of the policy number should

¶32

have been mentioned as “5078”, it was incorrectly typed as “78” .

¶33

12. In view of admitted facts as detailed above so also the settled position of law, this Court is of the view that the Court below was not justified to reject the petition of the Petitioners for correction of the admitted error / omission of few digits with regard to the Policy Number of the offending vehicle, thereby debarring the Petitioners to get the benefits in terms of the award passed by it. This Court is also of the view that the Officer of the Insurance Company was also not justified to advise the petitioners to get the said omission/ typographical error rectified in the award to honour the same, as it never raised such a point as to mentioning of policy number incorrectly in its Written Statement.

¶34

Page 5 of 6

¶35

13. Accordingly, the order dated 11.04.2023 passed in MAC No.97 of

¶36

2017 is set aside and matter is remitted back to the court below with a direction to correct the said error crept in the judgment dated 16.12.2022 passed in MAC No.97 of 2017, as prayed by the Petitioners, who are the claimants before the Court below. As directed above, necessary order be passed by the court below within a week from the date of production of

¶37

the certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No-2-Insurance Company is also directed to act in terms of the award and make necessary

¶38

payment within two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the said order, to be passed by the court below.

¶39

14 . The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to cost.

¶40

15. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules.

¶41

…….……………………

¶42

S.K. MISHRA, J.

¶43

Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, 13^th December, 2023/ Banita

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: JR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH OCURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Page 6 of 6 Date: 18-Dec-2023 11:14:12

Minati Lenka v. Amulya Kumar Mohapatra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minati Lenka v. Amulya Kumar Mohapatra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Ku.Das Vs State of Odisha

East Coast Railway Vs M/S. Vaishnodevi Construction

State of Odisha Vs Satyashri Mohapatra

Manmohan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Abhimanyu Jena Vs State of Odisha

Debal Ku.Mishra Vs Tapan Majhi