Back
Supreme Court Slaps Summons on Tamil Nadu DGP: "Shocking" Affidavit Ignites Fury in Forged Insurance Probe
In a dramatic escalation of a motor accident compensation battle, the has summoned the , for a on . The bench of Justice Ahsanudddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan expressed strong displeasure over an affidavit filed by the DGP, terming its contents as reflective of a flawed understanding of police investigation norms. The case, , stems from allegations of a forged insurance policy used to claim damages from a bus crash.
From Fatal Crash to Tribunal Tug-of-War
The saga began with a road accident that left claimant K. Saravanan severely injured. He underwent surgeries, endured prolonged treatment, and eventually resigned from his job due to disability. Saravanan filed a petition before the , seeking compensation from the bus owner and insurer, .
The insurer mounted a fierce defense, denying the extent of injuries, disability, and expenses. Crucially, it alleged the insurance policy was , while also blaming the claimant's negligence and policy breaches. The MACT ruled in Saravanan's favor, attributing the crash to the bus driver's and holding the insurer liable.
National Insurance appealed to the , which upheld the negligence finding and liability but tweaked the compensation amount, dismissing the forgery challenge. Undeterred, the insurer approached the Supreme Court via .
Insurer's Forgery Bombshell Prompts Police Probe
At the apex court, the focus sharpened on the alleged policy fabrication. On , the bench the (through its DGP) as respondent no. 3, directing a detailed affidavit on whether the forgery had been investigated. The DGP complied with a personally affirmed affidavit on —but it backfired spectacularly.
The insurer argued the policy's invalidity absolved it of liability, urging scrutiny of how a fake document sailed through lower courts. Saravanan and the state countered by defending the claim's legitimacy, with the affidavit purportedly explaining police procedures.
Bench's Blunt Rebuke: "It Speaks Volumes"
The Supreme Court, hearing senior counsel for the state on , zeroed in on paragraphs 13 and 14 of the DGP's affidavit. In a tentative but scathing assessment, the bench questioned the police chief's grasp of investigative duties, suggesting subordinates had poorly briefed him. No precedents were cited in this interim order, but the court's emphasis on accountability in probes underscores broader principles of in civil claims involving potential fraud.
This intervention highlights tensions between insurance defenses and state machinery in motor accident cases, where forged documents can undermine victim compensation under the .
Key Observations
"We take strong objection to the statements made by him in paragraphs no.13 and 14 of the said affidavit."
"In the tentative view of the Court, if that is the understating of how investigation should be done by the Head of the Police Department i.e., the Director General of Police, it speaks volumes."
"Tentatively, we find that the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, has not been properly briefed by his subordinates while preparing the affidavit, which has been filed."
DGP in the Dock: Personal Summons and Ongoing Relief
The court ordered the DGP to appear personally on , listing the matter at the top. The interim order from —extended periodically—remains in force, preserving the on compensation enforcement.
This rare personal summons signals judicial intolerance for lax investigations in insurance fraud claims, potentially deterring similar lapses. For insurers, it reinforces the need for robust evidence of forgery; for victims, it ensures state accountability. The next hearing could redefine how police handle such disputes, impacting countless road accident cases nationwide.
