IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Mamta Das and Others – Respondents
MAC App. No. 72 of 2018, I.A. (Civil) No. 417 of 2018, I.A. (Civil) No. 3247 of 2017, C.O. No. 27 of 2019, M.C. No. 20 of 2015
Decided On : 12-03-2024
Fraud - Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, Section 173, Section 166 - The court discussed the fraudulent means used to obtain the Judgment & Award dated 05.07.2014 and referred to the legal provisions allowing the court to set aside an order obtained by fraud. The court also highlighted the mandatory registration of F.I.R. on receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence and the need for proper investigation by the Insurance Company.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a motor vehicle accident, and the claimant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant alleged that the Judgment & Award was obtained by fraud.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the GD Entries and concluded that the appellant should be given the opportunity to substantiate their contentions, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned Judgment & Award and remand the matter for further consideration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fraudulent means used to obtain the Judgment & Award, the discrepancies in the GD Entries, and the need for proper investigation by the Insurance Company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legal provisions allowing the court to set aside an order obtained by fraud, the mandatory registration of F.I.R., and the need for proper investigation by the Insurance Company.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment & Award, and remanded the matter for further consideration.
JUDGMENT :
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mr. B.K. Jain, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1-3.
2. The instant appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 against the Judgment & Award dated 05.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) in MAC Case No. 2277/2010 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. The facts of the case narrated in the impugned Judgment in brief is that, on 06.11.2010 at about 12 midnight, while the deceased Abhijit Das was coming by his own Motor Cycle bearing Registration AS-01/AH-5390 from Maligaon Chariali towards Lachit Nagar, when he reach Maligaon Railway Gate No. 3, the offending vehicle AS-91-AP/4138 (Santro Car) driven in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down from the back side. As a result of the accident, the said Abhijit Das sustained grievous injuries and was immediately admitted at GNRC Hospital, Guwahati. However, on 09.11.2010 the said Abhijit Das succumbed to his injuries and the post mortem on the death body was conducted in the hospital.
4. At the relevant time the Santro Car was driven by the opposite parties/respondent No. 3 and was insured with opposite party No. 1/instant appellant. The Insurance Company in the written statement claimed that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimant was highly in calculated and that the Insurance Company decline to accept liabilities. The opposite party No. 2/owner of the vehicle and opposite party No. 3, the Driver did not contest the case by filing their written statement. The case then proceeded ex-parte against them.
The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:
(i) Whether the victim, Shri Abhijit Das died as a result of injuries sustained by him in the alleged road accident dated 06.11.2010 involving Vehicle No. AS-01-AP/4138 and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent drive of the driver of the offending vehicle?
(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation, if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable?
5. The learned trial court after considering the evidence adduce by the claimant and the Insurance Company found that the claimant are entitled to get Rs. 28,00,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs) only with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claimed petition i.e. 21.12.2010 till payment from the opposite party No. 1, New India Assurance Company Limited. The learned trial court found that there was no dispute to the fact that there relevant time of the accident, the offending vehicle AS-01/AP-4138 (Santro Car) was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited and was driven by the opposite party No. 3 having valid licence. As such, the compensation was to be paid by the Insurance Company/Opposite Party No. 1.
6. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant appeal has been filed mainly on the grounds that the Judgment & Award dated 05.07.2014 in MAC Case No. 2277/2010 has been obtained by fraud. That the learned Tribunal was misled by the claimant who had failed to disclose about a first G.D.E. Entry vide No. 158 dated 06.11.2010 of Jalukbari P.S. Traffic Branch and the G.D.E. Entry vide No. 159 dated 06.11.2010. The G.D. entries in 158 and 159 dated 06.11.2010, stated that the accident had occurred on 06.11.2010. As per the said GD entries “the driver of Motor Cycle vide Registration No. AS-01/AH-5390, while coming from Bharalumukh towards Maligaon hit the divider of the road at Maligaon Gate No. 4 and the rider sustained injuries......” The Motor Cycle was brought to the Police Station. However, the claimant in the MAC Case No. 2277/2010 had filed the FIR on 05.12.2010 and led the learned Tribunal to believe that the accident on 06.11.2010 occurred when her husband was hit by a Santro Car vide Registration No. AS-01/AP-4138 at Maligaon
Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others
Godavari Devi Sharma and Others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others
Indian Bank vs. Satyam fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to set aside an order obtained by fraud and the importance of proper investigation by the Insurance Company.
Fraud vitiates all judicial acts; a judgment obtained through fraud is void ab initio and must be set aside.
Compensation in motor vehicle accident claims assessed on preponderance of probability; strict proof and police investigation not necessary for entitlement.
(1) Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, is essentially in nature of first appeal like Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code – High Court is under legal obligation to decide all issues both o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for authentic and consistent evidence in compensation claim cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Fraud in legal claims must be adequately substantiated; discrepancies in documentation alone do not invalidate awards unless malicious intent is proven.
The insurer is liable for compensation regardless of alleged fraud concerning the insurance policy, which must be proven by the insurer.
The claimant must establish the occurrence of an accident with corroborative evidence; reliance solely on witness testimony without supporting documentation is insufficient for compensation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.