O R D E R

The Insurance Company is before this Court seeking interference of this Court to the final report filed by the 2nd respondent police in C.C.No.106 of 2017 which is a result of investigation in Crime No.189 of 2016. 2. The factual background of the petition is that three persons travelling in a motorcycle Yamaha FZ bearing Regn.No.TN-37-CX-5043 which was insured under the petitioner company, met with an accident on 03.08.2016. The two wheeler ramped into iron fencing, in which one Dinesh Kumar died and the other two persons sustained injuries. F.I.R was registered on the information given by Nantha Kumar, one of the pillion rider. According to his information, the vehicle was driven by Udaya Kumar. The deceased Dinesh Kumar was sitting next to the rider and the informant Nantha Kumar was sitting next to Dinesh Kumar. Based on the said information, F.I.R registered for the offences under Section 279 & 304(A) of I.P.C as against Udaya Kumar, who was the rider of the two wheeler.

3. The case of the Insurance company is that they engaged private investigator and had came to know that the vehicle was driven not by Udaya Kumar but by the deceased Dinesh Kumar. Suppressing the fact that the police has made Udaya Kumar as an accused showing him as the rider of the two wheeler.

4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the alleged statement of witnesses recorded by the private investigator submitted that the investigation done by the respondent is to be set aside and further investigation to be ordered.

5. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents submitted that on the information given by one of the injured who was travelling in the motor cycle, F.I.R was registered, statement of witnesses were recorded and final report filed. The case of the prosecution as gathered from the witnesses is that the vehicle was driven by Udaya Kumar, the accused. This has been spoken by Nandha Kumar who is one of the Co-traveller in the two wheeler. While so, the theory put forth by the insurance company relying upon the investigation report given by some unknown private investigator who has conducted the enquiry after one year of the accident is to be ignored.

6. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents.

7. The contention of the petitioner is that a motor accident case came to be registered by the respondent police on the information given by one Nantha Kumar, who was one of the traveller in the two wheeler. The statement of witnesses including the eye witness Nantha Kumar is that at the time of accident, the two wheeler was driven by one Udaya kumar. Even according to the first report of the private investigator engaged by the Insurance Company, the vehicle which stood in the name of Ravi Kumar been sold to Udaya Kumar, the accused in this case. While so, the theory now attempted to be introduced by the Insurance Company that the vehicle was driven by deceased Dinesh Kumar and not Udaya Kumar as found in the F.I.R and final report cannot be entertained for the sake of suspicion raised by the petitioner herein. If at all, the Insurance Company has collected any contra information than what gathered and relied by the prosecution, it can be used to repudiate their liability to compensate the injured and deceased of the accident. It has to be demonstrated in the motor accident claim petition.

8. The alleged parallel investigation conducted by the Insurance Company cannot be taking into consideration which is contrary to the material collected by the Investigating Officer, in the course of investigation done in accordance with law.

9. For the said reason, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

22.08.2024 Index : Yes/No. Neutral Citation : Yes/No.

bsm To:-

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Erode.

3. The Inspector of Police, Puliampatti Police Station, Erode District.

4.