An insurer cannot avoid third-party liability based on unilateral internal investigations alleging fraud or ante-dating of an insurance policy after the award is passed, especially when the insurer issued the policy and failed to challenge its validity in a competent court.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

By this common judgment, three appeals bearing FAO Nos. 3932 (lead case) of 2015; 637 & 7434 of 2016 arising out of award dated 13.01.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short, “the Tribunal”), in MACT Case No. 98 of 2012 are being decided together.

FACTS

As per the case set up by the claimants, on 19.09.2012 deceased Narinder Singh along with Rajan Mishra were proceeding from Ropar to Garshankar in Tempo bearing registration No.PB-12-K-1795 loaded with mobile oil. JaswinderSingh was following them on a separate scooter. At about 5.00 PM, near Kukar Majra Petrol Pump, Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.DL-08-CJ-8182 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 came from the opposite side and struck against the Tempo. Due to the impact, Narinder Singh and Rajan Mishra suffered multiple grievous injuries and died at the spot.

The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Scorpio vehicle by respondent No.1 and awarded compensation of Rs.20,73,878/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization.

Aggrieved by the award dated 13.01.2015, all the parties preferred the present appeals before this Court. Appeal bearing FAO No. 3932 of 2015 has been filed by Simran Kaur @ Rekha Rani, widow of deceased-Narinder Singh, seeking enhancement of compensation as well as modification of the apportionment of the awarded amount.

The connected appeal bearing FAO No. 637 of 2016 filed by Hardial Singh and another, i.e. father and mother of the deceased, has also been preferred seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the share apportioned in favour of the widow on the ground that she subsequently got remarried.

National Insurance Company Limited separately filed the third appeal bearing FAO No. 7434 of 2016 assailing the impugned award to the limited extent of seeking recovery rights against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle on the plea that the insurance policy in question was fraudulently ante-dated after the occurrence of the accident.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT / PROFORMA RESPONDENT-SIMARAN KAUR ALIAS REKHA RANI

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of widow-appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was wholly inadequate. It was argued that future prospects were not added despite deceased being self-employed and income tax assessee. He further contended that father of deceased being Class-II heir under Hindu Succession Act was not entitled to compensation in presence of widow and mother who were Class-I heirs.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS / CLAIMANTS-HARDIAL SINGH & SURJIT KAUR

Learned counsel for appellants/claimants argued that compensation deserved enhancement under various conventional heads including loss of estate and future prospects. It was also contended that widow having remarried was not entitled to compensation and entire amount ought to be released in favour of parents of deceased.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Company submitted that though amount already stood deposited and disbursed, the Insurance Company was entitled to recovery rights from owner of offending vehicle as the insurance policy was fraudulently ante-dated after occurrence of accident. It was argued that vigilance inquiry revealed that premium was actually deposited on 24.09.2012 whereas accident had occurred on 19.09.2012 and policy had been ante-dated with effect from 18.09.2012 in connivance with officials of Insurance Company. Learned counsel further submitted that material collected during vigilance inquiry including bank records and RTI information clearly established fraud and therefore recovery rights deserve to be granted.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.

The findings record