Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Smt. Babita Devi and others - Appellants
Versus
Pawan Kumar and others - Respondents
FAO No.324 of 2007(O&M)
Decided On : 08-09-2017
Fraud - Motor Accidents Claims - Code of Civil Procedure, Motor Vehicle Act - Sections 151, 152, 153, 169 - S.P.Changalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs.,(1994) 1 SCC, 1 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and others etc.,2000(3) SCC, 581
Fact of the Case:
An accident occurred, resulting in two claims petitions. The Tribunal initially awarded compensation, but it was later found to be obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The Insurance Company filed for re-calling/setting aside of the award, which was allowed by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal had the power to recall its judgment on the ground of fraud. The evidence of fraud was unimpeachable, justifying the re-calling of the order. The application was not barred by limitation, and the investigator had the authority to carry out the investigation. The claimants failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident.
Issues: The power of the Tribunal to recall its judgment, the limitation for filing the application, the authority of the investigator, and the admissibility of new facts in the application for re-call.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal has the power to recall its judgment on the ground of fraud. In case of fraud, the limitation starts from the date of knowledge. The Court can rely upon all evidence brought to its notice in cases of fraud. The claimants must prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment passed by the Tribunal.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. The appeal before me presents a very unfortunate position. The fountain of justice is sought to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants in collusion with their counsels. It is said that “fraud and justice never dwell together.”
2. Luckily, in this case the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal) recalled its earlier award dated 10.04.2001 passed while deciding two claims petitions, after finding that the award passed by the Tribunal was result of a fraud played with the Court as well as with the Insurance Company.
Brief Facts
3. An accident is alleged to have taken placed on 10.10.1998 at 10.00 PM at night. Madan Singh lodged an FIR No.246 dated 10.10.1998, stating that when he was going on the Guhla Cheeka Road, he saw a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-09-6546 lying on the road after having met with an accident and two persons were also lying by the side.
4. In the meantime, one Nayab Bahadur, Chowkidar, reached. Madan Singh left the spot for lodging a police report. In the FIR, neither the make of the vehicle nor type of vehicle or its registration number was disclosed. Madan Singh himself stated that he reached at the spot later in point of time. Unfortunately, one of the injured Virender Singh died, whereas other injured Dharamvir survived. The police after investigation filed an un-traced report as the injured was not able to disclose either the make of the vehicle or type of vehicle or registration number of vehicle involved in the accident.
5. Two claim petitions were filed, one by the widow and minor children of deceased Virender Singh and the other by Dharamvir, the injured. It was stated in the claim petition that the accident took place with a Maruti Car bearing registration No.CH-01P-7906 being driven by one Pawan Kumar (who later on also became an advocate). Parveen Kumar was impleaded as owner of the offending car and the Oriental Insurance Company was impleaded as insurer of the car. It may be significant to note here that Parveen Kumar is also an Advocate in the office of Mr. Ranvir Prashar, Advocate, Kaithal. A written statement was filed on behalf of the driver and owner, admitting the accident. Although, the Insurance Company contested the claim petition denying the involvement of Maruti Car No.CH-01P-7906 in the accident. However, award came to be passed against the Insurance Company.
6. In claim petition No.51 of 1999, filed by legal heirs of Virender Singh, the Court awarded Rs.5,10,000/- on account of death of late Sh. Virender Singh, whereas in claim petition No.7 of 2000, compensation of Rs.80,000/- was awarded on account of injuries sustained by Dharamvir Singh in the accident.
7. The Oriental Insurance Company filed a petition under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 169 of the Motor Vehicle Act for re-calling/setting aside of the award dated 10.04.2001 with the assertion that the Divisional Office of the Insurance Company received information through reliable sources that the award in question have been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The Insurance Company on receipt of the said information, deputed Grover Associates for detail investigation. The Grover Associates after thorough investigation submitted a report that the award has been obtained in collusion by the claimants, owner and driver of the Maruti Car and a fraud has been played on the Court. The aforesaid application has been allowed by the learned Tribunal, vide judgment dated 22.09.2006 after recording a finding that the award passed on 10.04.2001 were a result of fraud, misrepresentation and collusion.
8. The report submitted by the Grover Associates, Independent Investigator is Ex.A4 on the file. The Insurance Company produced Head Constable Ajit Singh as PW1 who produced the record to prove that in the FIR an un-traced report was filed as injured failed to disclose either the make of the vehicle or the registration nu
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
