The court emphasized that fraudulent claims in motor accident cases undermine the judicial process, necessitating careful scrutiny of evidence to maintain justice.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. The instant Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the impugned Award dated 18.03.2015 passed by learned Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur, in MACT Case No.94 of 2013, whereby and whereunder compensation of Rs.35,39,152/- along with simple interest @ 7% per annum under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.

2. The main ground of appeal is that there has been manipulation in filing of the claim application in which fake claims have been raised on the basis of factually incorrect statements.

3. It is argued that when the impugned Award/judgment is read as a whole, a conspiracy angle will emerge showing connivance of the claimants and lawyers including the investigating agency for making false and fraudulent claims.

4. As per the case of the claimants, the incident took place when the deceased was travelling on his Motorcycle and the same was hit by one Truck bearing Registration No.JH18B 0170 which was being driven at the relevant time by one Driver, Manoj Kumar Das and the vehicle, in question was under the Insurance cover of appellant- Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited.

5. It is argued by learned counsel on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company that initially FIR (Ext.1) was registered after the accident being Dumka (M) P.S. Case No.5 of 2012 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC on 06.01.2012 against the driver of an unknown truck on the basis of fardbeyan of one Dhanpati Kisku, the wife of the deceased. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet (Ext.2) against the said Driver, Manoj Kumar Das for causing death by rash and negligent driving, without referring the number of truck which was being driven by him.

6. Claimant has been examined as AW.1 (Dhanpati Kisku) and she has deposed that at the time of accident, she was going along with her husband and a Dumpher bearing Registration No.JH18B 0170 being driven rashly and negligently caused the accident. It is further argued that in the FIR, this witness has not named the vehicle number nor the name of the vehicle or its registration number, as such the FIR was lodged against unknown truck.

7. Therefore, it is not clear as to how she came to know about this vehicle itself being responsible for causing accident. In her cross-examination, this witness has wrongly stated in the FIR that she had disclosed the registration number of the offending vehicle. A.W.2 (Md. Salimuddin @ Pappu) has claimed himself to be the direct eye-witness of the accident and stated that accident was caused by the Dumpher bearing Registration No.JH18B 0170 and he has stated in his cross-examination that his statement was not recorded by the Police, but his name does not figure as a witness in the chargesheet (Ext-2).

8. The main contention raised at Bar on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company is that a hit and run case has been converted into a claim against the vehicle bearing Registration No.JH18B 0170, but the same was without any credible evidence of its involvement in the accident.

9. It is argued that in the District of Pakur, there is trend of filing such fake cases which will be evident from the very fact that the driver, Manoj Kumar Dash has been cited as driving the offending vehicle in at least three other cases MACT Claim Case No.88/13, MACT Case No.71/12 and MACT Case No.53/14.

10. Learned counsel for the claimant(s) has defended the impugned judgment of Award. It is argued that onus was upon the Insurance Company to bring into evidence that the deposition of any claimant witness(es) that the vehicle involved in the accident was not the said vehicle bearing Registration No.JH18B 0170. This argument is being raised for the first time before the appellate court and was not raised before the learned Trial Court.

11. It is argued that the owner in this case has appeared and admitted the involvement of the Truck in the accident although no char