The main legal point established in the judgment is that fraudulent behavior, including filing multiple applications for the same accident, suppressing facts, and misrepresenting information, can lead to the dismissal of the claim and a reduced compensation award.

1. The Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal in respect of an award of Rs.3,37,000/- granted for an injury caused to the claimant in an motor accident.

2. According to the Insurance Company, the claim itself is a bogus claim and the claimant has tried to cheat the very Court itself by mis-representing, suppressing and also by filing three cases for the same accident on three different places and having chosen to withdraw two cases, has continued the third case in which an exorbitant amount has been awarded as compensation in an injury case that too by applying and adopting the multiplier method which is against the dictums of the Honble Supreme Court and the Honble High Court and therefore it is a fittest case where the mis-use and abuse of the motor accident has to be exposed. Hence, the appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

3. As per the appellant, according to the claimant, the claimant on 03.03.2003 at about 7.00 pm., when the claimant was riding his Hero Hondo at the left side of the road, a Mahindra Tractor bearing registration no.TN 49Y 8587 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the two wheeler. Due to this, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries, namely, fracture in the right thigh and right ankle bone and lost two teeth over his upper jaw for which he has claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- and the lower Court after taking into consideration, the disability certificate, issued by the Doctor Ex.P11 and Ex.P13, fixed 50% disability in respect of loss of teeth and granted the compensation which is extraordinary because it has applied the multiplier theory. Furthermore, in the counter itself they had specifically pleaded that the claimant had filed three different applications stating that he met with an accident on 03.03.2003 and the particulars were given as follows:

"Court Sub Court, Sankari District Court, Salem now at Additional District Judge Court, Salem. District Court, Salem now at Additional District Judge Court, Salem.

Number

.M.C.O.P. 56 OF 2003

.M.C.O.P. 778 OF 2003

.M.C.O.P. 1315 OF 2003

Date of Filing 2/5/03 2/6/03

25.08.2003

Amount Claimed Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.6,00,000/-

Stage of procee-dings Dismissed as not pressed on 23.07.2004 Dismissed as not pressed on 211. 2004

Pending "

4. Even at the time of filing he has suppressed the fact that he has filed two other applications which he has done willfully, wantonly and therefore it amounts to cheating the Court and cheating the Insurance Company to make un-lawful gain by making fraud and mis-representation on the Court. In fact the Insurance Company in the counter, even stated that the claimant has not even met with an accident, as the Radiologist to whom the claimant was sent to take X-Ray had reported no injuries and therefore, he has suddenly absented from the Headquarters hospital and therefore went to private hospital which leads to suspicion. Therefore, they denied the accident. They deny the claim and especially they also would deny the suppression of facts in other two cases. They are not liable to pay and they also filed additional counter that there is a discrepancy between the F.I.R. and Wound Certificate Ex.A8 issued by the Kovai Medical Centre in respect of the very timing of the accident itself. Therefore, the claim made by the party is not genuine. But the lower Court has granted the award. Hence, they have come forward with this appeal.

5. The learnedcounsel appearing for the claimant/respondent would contend that the accident is true accident and is genuine. The injury sustained is correct as even from the Kovai Medical Centre documents especially when the originals has been sent for. The timings has been correctly proved and the fact that the claimant had multiple injuries would also entitle him to get the benefit as per the multiplier method. The not-pressing of the two applications would not be a bar for him to claim as there is no order passed in those cas