1. This statutory appeal u/s 173 of M.V. Act would collapse as the grounds available to the appellant-Insurance company for filing an appeal are delineated in section 149(2) of the M. V. Act of 1988, (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1988). It is settled position in law that appeal can be filed only when statute authorizes filing of such an appeal and can be filed only on the ground which the statute permits. The present appeal is not filed on the grounds mentioned in section 149(2) of the Act of 1988. The appeal on the face of it being incompetent would suffer dismissal. However, the ld counsel for the appellant referred to certain pleadings and evidence to show to the court that the respondent No.1 Raj Kumar has suffered the fatal injuries on account of accident not as a pillion rider, but was driving the scooter himself. The ld counsel for the appellant has referred to objections as also evidence brought on the record of MACT, Jammu. This appeal on the face of it, is not maintainable. However, this court deemed it appropriate to hear this appeal on the presumption that perhaps the award was obtained by practising fraud on tribunal.

2. It is settled position in law that any order or decree obtained by practising fraud on Court, is denuded of its legal effect. It was for this reason that this appeal was heard on the plea raised by ld counsel for the appellant. Before addressing the said plea the facts of the case are briefly summarized as under: -

One Raj Kumar S/o Shakar Ram R/o Reshamghar colony, Jammu on 20th Feb. 1989 was travelling on a scooter as a pillion rider bearing registration No. 2685 JKU. The scooter was being driven by respondent No.2 as per the pleadings of the claim petition. The scooter met with an accident when it reached near Purkhu on Akhnoor road which resulted inflicting of fatal injuries on Raj Kumar respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 remained unconscious for about one and half month and regained consciousness in All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi. The injuries which were sustained were so fatal that he was incapacitated to perform any normal functions. The further case pleaded is that the respondent No.1 was being looked after by his father but after his death he could not fall back upon for his assistance on anybody or for getting his medical treatment, which ultimately constrained him to file the claim petition. The case of the claimant was thus that because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver Sheshi Kumar respondent No.3 he suffered fatal injuries. The respondents 2 and 3 as also the appellant filed their objections before the MACT Jammu. Respondent No.2 admitted to be an owner of the scooter and respondent No.2 also admitted that he was driving the scooter on the fateful day when they met with an accident. The appellant filed objections to the maintainability of the claim petition, and raised a specific objection that it was the respondent No.1 who was driving scooter negligently, rashly and carelessly which caused the accident and thus he suffered the injuries because of his own act. Reference is also made to FIR at para 3 under the head of preliminary objections, where it is stated that there was no mention of the scooter in question either in the FIR or in the final report of the police. It is on this ground the claim petition is resisted by the appellant.

3. The MACT Jammu on the pleadings of the parties framed four issues and parties lead evidence in support of their respective claims.

4. The petitioner examined Dr. Deedar Singh, Karan Singh, M.K. Dhar, as witnesses. Respondents 2 and 3 did not lead any evidence. Whereas, the appellant examined Sh. Sunil Bhat, Lal Chand, and Swami Raj as witnesses in the case. The petitioner in his deposition before the tribunal has given all the details and the circumstances in which the accident took place. It is specifically stated in his statement that on 20th Feb. 1989 he was travelling on scooter as pillion rider which was bei

Click Here to Read the rest of this document