The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC and the requirement for evidence to substantiate fraud in order to recall an award.

1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed to set aside the order dated 20.4.2012 in I.A.No.871/2011 in MCOP No.153 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal.

2. The claimant is the appellant. Claim petition was filed, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident, that happened on 4.4.2006 at Baramkela-Lodhia Road near Kandanpra, Raigarh District at Chattisgarh State.

3. The claimant, who was a permanent resident of Mayiladuthurai, was working at Namakkal and was employed as Manager-cum-Driller in Nataraja Borewell, Tiruchengode. He used to go to other States for executing the borewell operations. Likewise he was engaged in borewell operation at Chattisgarh State.

4. On 4.4.2006, around 4.00 a.m, he was proceeding as a pillion rider in TVS Suzuki Motorcylce, bearing registration No.TN-34-B-6816, from his office on the Baramkela-Lodhia Main Road. The motorcycle was driven by one Saravanan and owned by the second respondent. As they were negotiating a turn near Kanchanpur, the said Saravanan drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and there was a sudden jerk and in that jerk, the claimant was thrown out and sustained grievous injuries on the backbone. He was taken to nearby Government Hospital and later shifted to Gokulam Hospital, Salem. The Baramkela police registered a case in Cr.No.42 of 2006 against the rider of the motorcycle.

5. The claimant had undergone treatment for 25 days and there was a fracture in the spinal cord and his lower part of the body is affected. The limbs cannot be moved and there is no control of his urinary bladder and rectum and he is bedridden. The disability was assessed at 100%. He has claimed Rs.10,00,000/- against the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company.

6. The owner of the vehicle filed a counter admitting the accident but denied negligence and would state that there is a valid coverage of Insurance Policy.

7. The second respondent Insurance Company opposed the claim stating that they are not liable and according to them there is a collusion between the owner and the injured and the vehicle was not involved in the accident. The Insurance company also took a plea that the pillion rider is not covered under the policy.

8. On enquiry, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief judicial Magistrate, Namakkal found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the motorcycle and also held, without any discussion, that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

9. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken into consideration 100% disability and applied the multiplier and arrived at Rs.14,28,000/-for loss of earning capacity and along with other conventional heads of damages, a total sum of Rs.17,44,238/- was awarded. Both the owner and the insurance company jointly and severally were directed to pay the compensation amount.

10. The first respondent Insurance Company immediately filed a review petition before the same Court to review the award. The main grounds to review and recall the judgment were as follows:

i) During an investigation of the accident by the Insurance Company, it was found to be a false claim and the owner as well as the claimant have colluded with each other as if the accident had occurred involving the insured vehicle.

ii) there are discrepancies in reporting the accident dated 4.4.2006

iii) FIR was registered only on 24.4.2006

iv) the hospital intimation would show that the injuries were caused by hard blunt object.

v) while the second respondent is said to be the employer, another person was examined as if he was employer to prove the income of the injured.

vi) though a counter was filed on behalf of the second respondent, he has not participated in the proceedings. Therefore, there is collusion between the insured and the claimant and therefore, the Insurance Company has to be ex