Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 413
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G.M. AKBAR ALI
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd
Versus
G.P. Chandrasekar & Another
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2468 of 2007 & Cross Objection No.94 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2007 and 1 of 2010
Decided On :Decided on: 27-01-2012
For the Petitioner - N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate.
For the Respondents - R1 - C. Munusamy, Advocate.
Ratio
While appreciating the evidences in the case of claim of compensation by the victims of motor accident, negligible faults or mistakes in those documents should not be given much importance.
Headnote:(A)Motor Vehicles Act, -------------(--------------)-Sec.140, 163A, 166-Motor accident-Injury-Insurer-Liability-Claim-Bogus claim-Appreciation of evidence-Negligence-Accident register-When the respondent had travelled in a two wheeler, he had suffered injuries and was admitted in the hospital by his sister who had stated that the injured was riding the motor cycle-In a claim by the injured by stating that he was a pillion rider and the rider was negligent in riding the motor cycle, insurance company resisted the claim by contending that the police records were fabricated and as he was a rider and negligent, it could not be fastened with liability-Though the Tribunal held that the injured was a rider, it directed the payment of compensation on the ground that he was in coma for two months which was challenged by the insurer and the finding of negligence was challenged by the injured-While the injured contended that entry in the accident register was made based upon the statement of his sister who did not know the facts, insurer contended that it was correct and resisted the liability on it-Held, while appreciating the claim of the victim of accident, all the documents were to be appreciated together by keeping the reality in mind-As the police records were consistent and the entry in accident register was vague, much importance could not be given to the entry in the accident register-Appeal of the insurer was dismissed and the award in favour of the injured was confirmed.
(B)Motor Vehicles Act, -------------(--------------)-Sec.140, 163A, 166-Indian Evidence Act, 1872(1 of 1872)-Sec.3-Motor accident-Injury-Insurer-Liability-Claim-Bogus claim-Appreciation of evidence-Negligence-Accident register-While appreciating the evidences in the case of claim of compensation by the victims of motor accident, negligible faults or mistakes in those documents should not be given much importance.
The informant as per Accident Register could have given such information without knowing the exact facts. The subsequent complaint and the police investigation should not always be looked suspiciously unless there are strong proof to show that the investigation was not fair and impartial. It is natural for the Insurance company to have an ’juanticed eye’ in view of flooding bogus claims. But one should not loose sight that there may be genuine cases in which negligible fault may occur and persons in distress may do all foolish things. Para 38
G.M. AKBAR ALI,J.,
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Sec.173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and decree, dated 10.04.2007, made in M.C.O.P No.2097 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, (Chief Court of Small Causes), Chennai, while the claimant/victim has preferred Cross Objection Under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC not being satisfied with the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal.
2. Both the Appeal and Cross Objection, arising from the same judgment of the Tribunal, are disposed of by a common judgment.
3. The Insurance Company is the appellant. The first respondent filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem in O.P No 2097 of 2004, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident occurred on 22.2.2004 around 3.30 p.m on the ECR Road at Kovalam. According to the claimant, he was travelling as a pillion rider in the motor bike, bearing Registration No:TN07AB 1643, driven by one Muthu, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and ultimately, lost his control and dashed against the median wall and thereby the accident had occurred. The claimant suffered fracture of the right legs and other injuries. He had claimed a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- against the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company.
4. The Insurance Company resisted the claim and the accident was denied. By stating that the claimant was brought to Malar Hospital by his sister one G.P.Menaka, who, in her statement given before the Hospital Authorities, told that the claimant sustained injuries while riding a two wheeler which hit against a wall and fell down, the Insurance Company denied the accident as well as the liability.
5. In order to prove the claim, the claimant examined five witnesses, of whom, three were doctors and on the side of the respondent, three witnesses were examined. On the side of the claimants Exs.P.1 to P.21 were marked and on the side of the Insurance Company Exs.R.1 to R.5 were marked.
6. After examining the case and cause, the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/ Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, found the records fabricated one and that the injured was the rider and not a pillion rider and, so finding, held that the claimant is not entitled for compensation. However, considering the pathetic condition of the claimant, who remained in a coma stage at least for two months, the learned Chief Judge proceeded under Sec.163A of M.V. Act and awarded a sum of Rs.7,07,000/-and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company to satisfy the award. Aggrieved by fastening of such liability, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on various grounds. Not being satisfied with the quantum of award and also the findings that the claim under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is not maintainable, the claimants have preferred the cross objection for enhancement.
7. Mr.N. Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that in as much as the Tribunal had found that the records and documents were fabricated to show that the rider of the motorcycle was the claimant, who himself caused the accident, the Tribunal ought not to have proceeded to award compensation under Sec.163-A of the Act.
8. According to the learned counsel, when the Tribunal has held that the claimant himself was the rider, who was at fault, even assuming that he is covered under no fault liability, the statutory amount should not exceed Rs.25,000/-.
9. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company further pointed out that the benefit of the social welfare legislation cannot be extended to the persons, who have fabricated the claim, and therefore, the Insurance Company should not be fastened with the liability to pay the compensation.
10. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company relied on the decisio
