Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 695
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P. Sandesh, J.
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Yohan Desa – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7358 of 2015 (MV-I)
Decided On : 01-02-2023
K.S. Lakshmeenarasappa, Advocate, A.M. Venkatesh, Advocate, K. Prasanna Shetty, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of accurate documentation and the consequences of fraudulent claims in motor vehicle accident cases.
Headnote:
Fraud - Motor Vehicle Accident - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166, 168, 149] - The court discussed the evidence of the accident, the delay in filing the complaint, and the discrepancies in the medical records. The key legal provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166, 168, and 149 were interpreted to highlight the importance of accurate documentation and the consequences of fraudulent claims. The court's decision was influenced by the discrepancies in the evidence and the failure to consider the created documents, leading to the dismissal of the claim petition.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and filed a claim petition for compensation. The insurance company challenged the petition, alleging fraud and discrepancies in the evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were discrepancies in the evidence, including a delay in filing the complaint and inconsistencies in the medical records. The court concluded that the claim was fraudulent and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the evidence, the delay in filing the complaint, and the discrepancies in the medical records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the discrepancies in the evidence, the importance of accurate documentation in motor vehicle accident cases, and the consequences of fraudulent claims.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and award of the Tribunal were set aside, and the claim petition was dismissed. The amount deposited by the insurance company was ordered to be refunded.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dtd. 23/6/2015 passed in MVC No.377/2008 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi, sitting at Kundapura ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Tribunal is that he met with an accident on 27/9/2007 when he was proceeding on the side of the mud road near Virupaksha Temple, Hosangadi village, Kundapura taluk, at that time, a lorry came and dashed against him, as a result, he had sustained injuries and immediately, he was taken to the KMC hospital wherein he took treatment from 27/9/2007 to 11/12/2007 and later he took treatment as an out patient. In pursuance of the claim petition, the insurance company appeared and filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and respondent No.1 also represented through counsel but not filed any written statement. The specific contention taken by the counsel for the respondent No.2 that the injury sustained by the petitioner is not relating to the accident that was occurred on 27/9/2007 with involvement of the vehicle and there was a delay of 14 days in filing the complaint and the history is mentioned that fall from a tree from the height of around 20 feet and after the registration of the case, manipulated the records in order to claim the compensation.
4. The claimant in order to substantiate his case, he himself examined as PW1, also examined the doctor as PW2, the Police Constable as PW3 and eye-witnesses have been examined as PW4 and PW5 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P22. On the other hand, respondents have examined one of the witness as RW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R10. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered Issue No.1 as affirmative coming to the conclusion that accident was occurred and the petitioner had sustained injuries in the said accident and awarded the compensation and fastened the liability on the insurance company. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.
5. The main contention of the insurance company that it is a case of clear fraud in order to make wrongful gain and further contended that immediately after the accident, injured was taken to the KMC hospital wherein history was given as fall from tree at 4.30 p.m. on 27/9/2007. The brother who had taken the injured to the hospital given the history that it is a case of fall from tree. The counsel also further submits that Ex.P7-discharge summary is also clear that history was given as fall from tree and the police as well as the doctor have colluded with each other in order to help the claimant to make wrongful gain and even Ex.R5 clearly discloses that intimation was sent to the police on the very same day wherein also history was given as fall from tree. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking note of filing of charge-sheet and only on the ground that the chargesheet was filed against the driver of the lorry, allowed the petition and granted compensation hence, the Tribunal failed to consider the documents particularly, Ex.R5 and Ex.P7-discharge summary and a delay of 14 days in filing the complaint.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant would submit that the driver of the lorry had assured that he would meet the medical expenses and hence, the complaint was not given immediately and the same is explained in the evidence. The police have also investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against the driver of the lorry and Tribunal also taken note of the same and considered the explanation given by the injured and accepted the case of the claimant. The Tribunal not accepted the evidence of RW1 who is a investigating agent examined by respondent No.2 and rightly comes to the conclusion that no
