P&H HC Upholds Parents’ Correction to Son’s Fatal-Crash Claim, Finding Wrong Vehicle Details in One Paragraph Were a Clerical Error

The claimants brought a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for their son’s death in a road accident.

Although the claim petition’s particulars and the FIR identified the deceased’s motorcycle as PB-11CG-1871 and the offending vehicle as an Indica car bearing registration No. HR36-M-6209, paragraph 24 of the original petition described a different motorcycle and accident circumstances.

The petitioner, impleaded as the car’s owner, disputed responsibility and stated that he had sold the car before the accident.

The claimants applied under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend paragraph 24, asserting that it contained a typographical error.

The Tribunal allowed the application, and the petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The application was considered under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the Tribunal applied to permit correction of the claim petition, and the challenge was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution, the basis invoked for the High Court’s supervisory review.

The Court’s reasoning was that an amendment correcting a clerical or typographical error and aligning a pleading with the factual account otherwise appearing in the record may be allowed where it causes no prejudice to the opposing parties.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court compared paragraph 24 with the FIR, the other particulars in the claim petition, and the issues framed by the Tribunal.

Those materials consistently referred to the deceased riding motorcycle PB-11CG-1871 and an Indica car, whereas the original paragraph 24 described a different motorcycle and circumstances.

It accepted the Tribunal’s finding that the discrepancy resulted from a typographical or clerical error and that correcting it would not prejudice the respondents.

The amendment therefore brought paragraph 24 into line with the factual account already reflected elsewhere in the record.

The petition was dismissed, and pending applications were closed.