Final Order 1

Order Details: Order on Exh.
Pdf Text: Page 1 of 9
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT
MUMBAI
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2026
IN
M.A.C.P. NO. 1806 OF 2015
Shakrunisha Rafatullah Shaikh & Ors.
…Applicants
Versus
Janardhan A.P. Sagade
…Opposite Party
And
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
…Insurer
ORDER
1. By this order, I dispose of the present Miscellaneous
Application preferred by applicant Nos.1 to 6 seeking
correction of their names in the record of M.A.C.P. No.1806
of 2015 and for consequential permission that the award
amount already deposited pursuant to the judgment and
award dated 10/06/2022 be disbursed and/or invested in
their corrected names.
2 I have perused the application, affidavits filed in
support thereof, copies of Aadhaar cards and PAN cards
annexed therewith, the earlier judgment and award passed
in M.A.C.P. No.1806 of 2015, the apportionment directions
contained therein, the report of the Accounts Officer
-- 1 of 9 --
Page 2 of 9
regarding deposit of the award amount, and the
notice/service material placed on record. The application
states that while filing the original claim petition,
typographical errors occurred in the spelling/description of
the names of applicant Nos.1 to 6, and that the correct
names as reflected in their identity documents are required
to be brought on record so that disbursement and
investment may take place in the proper names of the very
same claimants.
3 The record further shows that by judgment and award
dated 10/06/2022, the claim petition was partly allowed
and compensation of Rs.43,02,000/- with future interest @
7% p.a. from the date of application till realization came to
be awarded. The award also directed apportionment,
namely: 35% to applicant No.1, 7.5% each to applicant
Nos.5 and 6, and 50% to be equally invested in the names
of minor applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 through applicant No.1 as
natural guardian till they attain majority, with accrued
interest payable to applicant No.1 for their expenses. The
Accounts Officer’s report notes deposit by the insurer and
investment of the amount.
4. In the present application, the applicants have
specifically set out the names originally mentioned in the
claim petition and the corrected names sought to be
substituted. The corrections sought are as under:
a. “Shakrunisha Rafatulla Shaikh” to “Shakrunisha
-- 2 of 9 --
Page 3 of 9
Rafatullah Shaikh”;
b. “Hayatullaha Rafatulla Shaikh” to “Hayatullah Rafatullah
Shaikh”;
c. “Samiullah Rafatulla Shaikh” to “Samiullah Rafatullah
Shaikh”;
d. “Miss. Sadika Khatun Rafatulla Shaikh” to “Sadika
Rafatullah Shaikh”;
e. “Baitulla Hasan Raza Shaikh” to “Baitullah Hasan Raza
Shaikh”;
f. “Smt. Kamrun Baitulla Shaikh” to “Kamrunnisha Baitullah
Shaikh.”
These corrections are supported by sworn affidavits
and identity documents. Applicant No.1 has also filed a
separate affidavit as natural guardian of minor applicant
Nos.2 to 4 seeking corresponding correction and investment
in their corrected names.
5 The point that arises for consideration is whether such
correction can be permitted at this stage and whether
consequential withdrawal/disbursement/investment in the
corrected names can be ordered.
REASONS
6. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the present
application does not seek any review of the judgment on
merits, any alteration in the quantum of compensation, any
-- 3 of 9 --
Page 4 of 9
variation in liability, or any change in apportionment inter
se beyond implementation in the proper names of the
beneficiaries already declared entitled under the award.
The application is confined to rectification of names on the
basis that the persons named in the original proceedings
and the persons described in the corrected names are one
and the same, and that the discrepancy is
typographical/clerical in nature. That is borne out by the
contents of the application, the affidavits, and the identity
documents annexed with the record.
7. The law is well settled that courts and tribunals
possess power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes
and errors arising from accidental slip or omission, but such
power cannot be exercised to alter the substance of the
judgment or decree. In
Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald
Joseph Coelho, (2001) 4 SCC 181, the Supreme Court
explained that the power corresponding to Section 152 of
the Code of Civil Procedure is attracted where the error is
accidental and does not extend to re-determination of
issues or modification of substantive adjudication. That
principle has been reiterated in later decisions as well.
8. Thus, where the correction sought is merely to bring
the record in conformity with the true and already intended
description of the parties, and where such correction does
not prejudice the opposite side or reopen the adjudication,
-- 4 of 9 --
Page 5 of 9
the court is fully justified in permitting such rectification.
Conversely, what is impermissible is a substantive change
that would modify rights already adjudicated. The
distinction between permissible correction of
accidental/clerical mistake and impermissible alteration of
the judgment itself is the controlling test.
9. In the present case, the corrections sought clearly fall
within the former category. The claimants remain the very
same widow, minor children and parents of the deceased
who prosecuted the claim petition and in whose favour the
award and apportionment were made. No fresh claimant is
sought to be introduced. No share is sought to be
redistributed on a new basis. No finding on negligence,
income, dependency, multiplier, or compensation is under
challenge. What is sought is only that the names appearing
in the disbursement/investment process be aligned with the
authentic identity documents so that banking, verification
and release of funds may take place without discrepancy.
This is, in substance, a ministerial and ancillary correction
necessary to effectuate the award.
10. Motor accident compensation proceedings are
intended to advance the grant of just compensation and not
to frustrate it by hyper-technical objections. The Supreme
Court has repeatedly emphasized that proceedings under
-- 5 of 9 --
Page 6 of 9
the Motor Vehicles Act are welfare-oriented, that the
Tribunal must adopt a pragmatic and justice-oriented
approach, and that technicalities ought not to defeat
legitimate compensation. In
Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh,
(2003) 2 SCC 274, the Supreme Court stressed the duty of
the Tribunal to award just compensation, unhindered by
unnecessary technical constraints. In
Jai Prakash v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 2 SCC 607, the Court
underscored that the entire scheme of MACT procedure is
meant to facilitate effective and timely disbursement to the
rightful claimants.
11. Likewise, in
Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport
Corpn., (2009) 13 SCC 530, and in
N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v.
M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457, the Supreme Court
cautioned that MACT proceedings should not be defeated
by niceties of technical procedure when the material on
record reasonably establishes entitlement. Those decisions,
though rendered in the context of proof and adjudication of
claims, reinforce the broader principle that the Tribunal
must ensure that beneficial relief reaches the real
beneficiaries and is not obstructed by formal defects which
do not go to the root of the entitlement.
12. In the matter at hand, the applicants have produced
Aadhaar and PAN documents corresponding to the
corrected names. The affidavits on oath affirm that the
-- 6 of 9 --
Page 7 of 9
wrongly mentioned names and the corrected names refer to
the same persons. The record of the original award itself
shows the family constitution of the claimants, and the
corrections now sought are consistent with that family
structure. There is no material suggesting impersonation,
substitution, fraud, or conflict of identity. Rather, the
correction appears necessary precisely to avoid any future
dispute at the stage of verification, bank investment, or
release of the amount.
13. So far as the minor applicants are concerned, the
earlier award already directed that their shares be invested
through applicant No.1 as natural guardian till they attain
majority. Therefore, once their corrected names are verified
and brought on record, the consequential investment in
those corrected names would only amount to faithful
implementation of the original apportionment order.
Similarly, release of the shares of applicant Nos.1, 5 and 6
in their corrected names would not amount to fresh
adjudication; it would merely ensure correct identification
of the award-holders.
14. Notice of the Miscellaneous Application has also been
processed, and the material placed on record includes
notice/summons and bailiff endorsement. In the facts of the
present application, and considering that the relief sought is
confined to clerical correction of names supported by
-- 7 of 9 --
Page 8 of 9
identity records and does not prejudice the substantive
rights of the opposite party or insurer, no legal impediment
is seen in allowing the application.
15. I am therefore satisfied that: i. the discrepancies in
the names of applicant Nos.1 to 6 are typographical/clerical
in nature;
ii. the persons originally shown in the claim petition and
award and the persons described in the corrected names are
one and the same;
iii. permitting correction will not alter the substance of the
judgment and award dated 10/06/2022, nor the
apportionment already ordered; and
iv. such correction is necessary for proper verification,
investment and disbursement of the award amount.
16. Hence, the Miscellaneous Application deserves to be
allowed.
ORDER
1. Miscellaneous Application No.111 of 2026 is allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that, in the record of M.A.C.P.
No.1806 of 2015 and for the purpose of implementation of
the judgment and award dated 10/06/2022, the names of
applicant Nos.1 to 6 shall be read as under:
a. Applicant No.1: Shakrunisha Rafatullah Shaikh
-- 8 of 9 --
Page 9 of 9
b. Applicant No.2: Hayatullah Rafatullah Shaikh
c. Applicant No.3: Samiullah Rafatullah Shaikh
d. Applicant No.4: Sadika Rafatullah Shaikh
e. Applicant No.5: Baitullah Hasan Raza Shaikh
f. Applicant No.6: Kamrunnisha Baitullah Shaikh
3. It is further declared that the names originally
mentioned in the claim petition/award and the corrected
names mentioned above refer to the same
applicants/award-holders.
4. The judgment and award dated 10/06/2022 in
M.A.C.P. No.1806 of 2015 shall remain otherwise unaltered
in all respects, including the findings on merits, liability,
quantum, interest and apportionment.
5. Necessary corrections shall also be carried out in the
office record, award execution/disbursement record, and
any connected investment memo/register for the limited
purpose of proper implementation of the award.
6. Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of
accordingly.
Pronounced in open Tribunal.
Date: 23/3/2026
Place: Mumbai (Shashikant Eknathrao Bangar),
Member, CR3,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai
-- 9 of 9 --