SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Mad) 1355

High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
E. Pushparani & Others
Versus
A.R. Iyyappan & Another
C.M.A.Nos.2, 3, 408 & 409 of 2012
Decided on: 17-06-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:M. Swamikannu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2, S. Arun Kumar, Advocate.

Fraudulent claims and collusion with investigating authorities can lead to the nullification of judgments and decrees.

Headnote:

Fraudulent Claim - Motor Accident - IPC 279, 304(A) - Summary

Fact of the Case:

Two separate claim petitions were filed in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai, alleging a collision between a motorcycle and an auto-rickshaw resulting in the death of the motorcycle riders. The insurance company opposed the claim, presenting evidence that a lorry, not the auto-rickshaw, was involved in the accident.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the claimants, driver, and owner of the auto-rickshaw, in collusion with the investigating police officer, had made a fraudulent claim for compensation. The court set aside the judgment and decrees made in favor of the claimants, allowing the insurance company to withdraw the deposited amount.

Issues: The issues involved fraudulent claim, collusion with the investigating police officer, and the rejection of the claim by the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a judgment obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and that fraud and justice cannot coexist. The court also emphasized that fraud on the court is viewed seriously and that fraudulent misrepresentation may give rise to a claim against fraud.

Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment and decrees made in favor of the claimants, allowing the insurance company to withdraw the deposited amount.

Judgment :

1. Alleging that on 09.07.2005, there was a collision between a Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 02 T 3709 and an Auto Rickshaw, bearing Registration No. TN 07 C 7635, which resulted in the death of both the rider and pillion of the Motorcycle, two separate claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.715 and 716 of 2006, have been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

2. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., has opposed the claim, contending inter alia that the Autorickshaw, insured with them, was not involved in the accident and that a fraudulent claim has been made. M/s.Vasu Associates, a Private Investigator of the Insurance Company, has written a letter, dated 16.07.2010, to the Insurance Company, stating that initially, a FIR has been registered against the driver of an unknown vehicle, under Sections 279 and 304 (A) IPC. During investigation and on verification of the Accident Register No.170, dated 09.07.2005 (Sl.No.1901476), the Investigator has recorded that the injured met with a road transport accident, near Tansi Bus stop and that they were hit by a lorry.

3. In the said letter, dated 16.07.2010, the Private Investigator has also stated that the abovesaid fact of a lorry, dashing against a motorcycle, has been confirmed by the statement of Mrs.Lakshmi, W/o.Krishnan, GST Road, Peramanur, who is a resident, near the alleged place of accident, who had clearly given a statement that on 09.07.2005 A.N., she heard a sound and when she came out of her house, noticed that a two-wheeler was hit by a lorry, which sped away from the place of occurrence.

4. In the same letter, the Investigator has also stated that the inquest report and Post-Mortem report of Mr.Stephen Chelladurai, disclose that the rider and pillion of the motorcycle were crushed antero-posteriorily, leaving the entire skull bones fractured, and brain pulpy and therefore, the Investigator has stated that if an Auto-rickshaw was involved in the accident, there was no possibility that the front tyre of the auto could have caused such grievous injuries. If the rear tyre had run over the head, then, the autorickshaw itself, would have capsized. In the letter, the Investigator has further stated that there was no police report or hospital records, mentioning tyre mark of the autorickshaw, found in the head of the deceased.

5. The private investigator has further stated that the autorickshaw was not at all involved in the said accident. The said vehicle has been sold on 13.07.2005 to one Mr.Srinivasan, just four days, after the alleged accident and thereafter, it has been produced at the Regional Transport Office, Chennai South, on 28.07.2005, for effecting name transfer. Observations of the private investigator, is as follows:

1. It is clear from the statement of eyewitnesses as well as the AR copy of Mr.Elangovan made at Government Medical College Hospital, Chengalpat, that the accident was caused by a lorry and not by autorickshaw as alleged in the petition.

2. The above fact is supported by the findings in the Inquest as well as in PM of Mr.Stephen Chelladurai, as it was mentioned that his head was crushed sideways, resulting in fracture of skull and brain being pulpy. This clearly indicates the involvement of heavy vehicle, as the possibility of autorickshaw running over the head of a person and causing such crush injury is remote.

3. It is also not out of place to mention that Mr.Elangovan, other deceased had died due to multiple injuries, including head injury, which indicates that it was a high impact collision, in which case the insured auto also would have sustained damages, if at all it was involved in the accident.

4. But it could be seen that the vehicle was sold within 4 days of alleged accident and presented to RTO for permit transfer within 5 days of purchase and name transfer with 15 days of purchase, indicating that the same was inspected and found to










































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top