Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 3583
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Coimbatore
Versus
K. Sekar & Another
C.M.A.No.3058 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided On : 11-10-2013
For the Appellant:J. Chandran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Mrs. Fathima for M. Velmurugan, R2, K. Dhananjayan, Advocates.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving the occurrence of an accident and highlights the consequences of making a fraudulent claim against an insurer.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 170 - The judgment discusses the claim for compensation arising from a road accident and the liability of the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The court analyzed the evidence, including medical reports and witness testimonies, to determine the occurrence of the accident and the extent of the injuries. It also addressed the issue of collusion between the claimant and the vehicle owner, ultimately setting aside the tribunal's award and dismissing the claim.
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent claimed compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident involving a motor cycle. The second respondent, the insurer, contested the claim, alleging collusion between the claimant and the vehicle owner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence presented by the claimant, leading to the conclusion that the accident as described was false. It also determined that there was collusion between the claimant and the vehicle owner to make a fraudulent claim against the insurer.
Issues: The main issues were the occurrence of the accident, the extent of the injuries, and the alleged collusion between the claimant and the vehicle owner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claimant failed to prove the occurrence of the accident and that there was collusion to make a fraudulent claim against the insurer. It also criticized the tribunal's lack of knowledge in assessing compensation in accident cases.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the tribunal's award, and dismissed the claim. It also imposed an exemplary cost on the claimant and the vehicle owner.
1. The Insurer who figured as second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.402 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore is the appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. K.Sekar, the first respondent herein filed a M.C.O.P.No.402 of 2009 claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation from the second respondent herein and the appellant herein, as owner and insurer respectively of the vehicle for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident alleged to have taken place at 6.30 a.m. on 18.12.2008 near Ramalakshmi Mills, Kamarajar road, Singanallur, Coimbatore. Claim was made on the basis of the averment that the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 37 AD 0040 belonging to the second respondent herein was the offending vehicle which hit the first respondent while he was walking along the road. It was the further contention made by the first respondent in his claim petition that while he was walking on the left side of the road, the above said motor cycle, which came in the opposite direction, was driven in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which it dashed against the first respondent. Based on the above said contention, the first respondent had claimed that the second respondent as owner of the said vehicle and the appellant herein as insurer of the said vehicle were jointly and severally liable to pay him a just compensation which the first respondent estimated at Rs.3,00,000/-.
3. As per the averments made in the M.C.O.P.No.402 of 2009, the following were the injuries sustained by the first respondent and the said injuries have led to permanent disability:-
1. 2 x 1 cm Lacerated wound Rt. Leg
2. 5 X 2 cm Scalp wound sutured at CMCH
3. X-Ray Rt. Leg AP and lateral view shows fracture Tibia upper 1/3 and lower 1/3
The second respondent herein did not contest the case and he remained ex-parte. The appellant herein contested the claim on the following objections:
The involvement of motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 37 AD 0040 belonging to the second respondent herein was not true. On the other hand, the first respondent herein got himself admitted in the hospital informing the hospital authorities that he was hit by a bus at 8.00 a.m. on 18.12.2008. Perhaps, due to inability to trace the bus which hit him or having sustained injuries in some other accident, the first respondent herein had come forward with the claim in collusion with the second respondent herein viz., the owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 37 AD 0040.
Apart from the above said contention, the appellant/ Insurance Company also disputed the petition averments that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by its rider. Permission was accorded by the tribunal under section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to the appellant to raise all grounds of defence available to the owner of the vehicle on the basis of the contention of the appellant that there was collusion between the first and the second respondents herein and that the same was the reason why the second respondent herein was not prepared to contest the case.
4. In the trial, the first respondent herein (injured) examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one Dr.K.Gajendran, P.W.2 in order to prove the nature of injuries and the resultant disability. 11 documents were marked on the side of the claimant/injured (first respondent herein). One Mr.A.R.Narayanasamy, Investigating Officer engaged by the appellant/ Insurance Company deposed as sole witness (R.W.1) on the side of the appellant herein/second respondent in the M.C.O.P. However, no document was filed. The tribunal at the conclusion of trial on a consideration of pleadings and evidence, accepted the case of the first respondent herein/injured and rejected the defence plea of the appellant herein/Insurer. The tribunal also held that the motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 37 AD 0040 was the vehicle involved in the accident; tha
