New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Jegadeesh Reddy and Vishwanath Reddy

V. Jagannathan, J.—This appeal is by the insurance company aggrieved by the liability being put. on the appellant by the tribunal while allowing the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent Jagadeesh Reddy.

The tribunal awarded Rs. 2,46,200/- as compensation to the 1st respondent in respect of the injury sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 31.5.2005. The appellant is aggrieved by the liability put on it and learned Counsel Sri. O. Mahesh, for the appellant made the following submission.

It is his contention that the vehicle KA-03-EP-8085 was driven by the very injured himself i.e. Jagadeesh Reddy and the accident occurred near the ring road cross at Ramamurthy Nagar at about 9.30 p.m, when according to the complaint, a dog came on the way and the rider of the motor cycle applied the brake suddenly and in the process, the 1st respondent fell down and sustained injuries.

The submission of the learned Counsel Sri. O. Mahesh is that the vehicle was driven by the claimant himself, but in order to claim compensation from the insurance company, the claimant managed to put up a different story all together by contending that he was the pillion rider in the motor cycle and it was driven by his brother Vishwanatha Reddy. The tribunal accepted the version of the claimant holding that the claimant was the pillion rider and that the accident was caused by the rider of the vehicle i.e. Vishwanatha Reddy, awarded compensation to the claimant since the vehicle was insured with the appellant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant referring to the documents produced by the; insurance company and also referring to the very stand taken by the claimant, submitted that the claimant has played fraud on the court and in connivance with the police, was able to get the charge sheet filed against his own brother and has been successful in getting the claim petition allowed by putting the liability on the insurance company. Referring to the document Ex. P5 which is the discharge summary, learned Counsel Sri. O. Mahesh argued that the said document makes it clear that the vehicle was driven by the claimant Jagadeesh Reddy himself and when he applied brake, he could not control, the vehicle fell down. He also referred to the medical records produced to show that the claimant was conscious when he was taken to the hospital for treatment, but in the complaint, the claimant has given a different story by contending that the claimant became unconscious after the accident. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that, of late, the insurance companies are being made to pay the compensation even though the accident has not taken place in the manner projected by the claimant before the MACT and in many cases, it has been noticed that even the police are hand-in-glove with the claimants and are filing the charge sheet to suit the case of the claimants and the modus operandi adopted, is to see that the person named as the accused in the charge sheet goes before the criminal court and pleads guilty and thereby closing all the doors open to the insurance company to question the truthfulness or otherwise of the charge sheet filed by the police and the present case is one such example of playing fraud on the court and ensuring that the claimant gets the compensation from the insurance company.

Learned Counsel also submitted that under the M.V. Act there is a requirement to see that as soon as information regarding any accident is recorded or a report is drawn by the police officer, the concerned officer incharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within 30 days from the date of recording of such information to the claims tribunal and a copy also has to be sent to the concerned insurer and the owner can also seek a copy of the said report by making a request to the claims tribunal and the insurer. In the instant case there is no such compliance of the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 158 of the M.V. Act 1988.

Therefore, reading together the entire material on record, it is not a difficult proposition to draw the inference that the claimant has played fraud on the court and by putting himself in the place of a pillion rider, he has succeeded in getting the claim petition allowed and liability being put on the insurance company. For all the above reasons, learned Counsel prayed for setting aside the judgment of the MACT in so far as putting liability on the appellant - insurance company is concerned.

On the other hand, learned Counsel Sri. Girish for the respondent No. 1 claimant contended that the conclusion reached by the MACT requires no interference because the documents produced before the claims tribunal reveal that the vehicle in question was driven by the younger brother of the claimant and the charge sheet which is produced at Ex. P4 also confirms this fact The charge sheet has not been questioned by the insurance company, and hence the inference to be drawn is that the case put forward by the claimant is, a genuine one and as such, the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the insurance company before this Court, cannot be accepted as having any merit.

As far as the case history given by the Doctor as per Ex. P5 is concerned, learned Counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant has clearly mentioned in the complaint itself that soon after the accident, the claimant became unconscious and therefore he was not in a position to know as to who gave the history of the accident before the doctor and further the delay in lodging the complaint has also been explained in the complaint itself. Under the above circumstances, the finding of the tribunal that the claimant was the pillion rider in the vehicle in question is a proper finding requiring no interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal be dismissed.

In the light of the contentions urged by the appellant''s counsel and the counter arguments advanced and taking into consideration the entire material placed before the tribunal by both the parties, can it be said that the tribunal was justified in drawing up the conclusion that the claimant was the pillion rider in the vehicle driven by his own brother Vishwanatha Reddy.

The F.I.R is produced at Ex. P1 and it mentions that the claimant was the pillion rider in the motor cycle driven by his younger brother Vishwanatha Reddy and while they were taking a turn towards the ring road in Ramamurthy Nagar, a dog came across the road and while trying to avoid hitting the dog, the rider lost control of the vehicle and the vehicle dashed to the median, the claimant fell down and lost his consciousness and later he came to know that he was admitted at Manipal Hospital for treatment As he was an in inpatient till 6.6.05, he could not lodge the complaint. It is mentioned in the complaint that the person responsible for causing the accident is Vishwanatha Reddy.

No doubt, to substantiate the contents of the F.I.R, the claimant has also produced the charge sheet at Ex. P4. The said document reveals that the vehicle was driven by the accused Vishwanatha Reddy (younger brother of the claimant). In a normal case, the court would have been inclined to go by the charge sheet contents and would have drawn the conclusion that the vehicle was driven by the person named as the accused in the charge sheet but what we have before us is a different cup of tea and the reasons are not far to seek.

Though the complaint mentions that the claimant became unconscious after the accident, yet the discharge summary produced by the claimant as per Ex. P5 reveals that the claimant was fully conscious and the history given was that the vehicle was driven by the claimant Jagadeesh Reddy himself. The relevant contents of Ex. P5 which will have a great bearing on the outcome of this case are as under:

38 year old gentleman Mr. Jagadish Reddy presented to us following a Road Traffic Accident This gentleman was travelling in a two wheeler when he suddenly encountered a dog. He applied the brake and could not control the vehicle and fell down.

There was no loss of consciousness.

Therefore, the theory put forward by the claimant that he became unconscious is totally negatived by the above history given by the claimant himself before the doctor. The second aspect is, the claimant never says in the claim petition that the vehicle was driven by his younger brother. The third factor is, that in the evidence given by the claimant by way of affidavit before the tribunal, nowhere the claimant has stated that the vehicle in question was driven by his brother. Let alone the said fact is missing, but even the claimant takes care not to mention the name of his brother also in the entire evidence given by him. If the claimant''s version is to be accepted and when the claimant goes to the extent of saying in the complaint that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner by his own brother Vishwanatha Reddy, nothing prevented the claimant from saying so in the evidence given by him before the tribunal. Taking care in not mentioning either name of the rider as Vishwanatha Reddy as his younger brother, the claimant in his evidence has therefore suppressed a very important material fact which also gives rise to accept the contentions put forward by the appellant''s counsel that an attempt was made by the claimant to play a fraud upon the court and to see that the insurance company is made liable some how or the other. The said inference is inescapable for the aforementioned reasons.

That the claimant has no regards for truth or to the legal system is also clear from the admission made by him in the course of his cross examination that though be is earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, he has not been paying income tax.

Therefore, on a careful consideration of the entire evidence on record, all that emerges is that the claimant has suppressed the truth of the matter and in order to avoid the blame being put on him as he was riding the vehicle in question, the claimant conveniently built up the story to suit his case that the vehicle was driven by his younger brother Vishwanath Reddy. Therefore, the Tribunal in my view has not applied its mind carefully to the facts and circumstances and merely because the charge - sheet is produced before the Tribunal by the claimants, the Tribunal could not have acted on the charge-sheet as if it is the gospel truth, when on a close examination of the materials on record, It is possible to draw the inference that the claimant lodged the complaint almost after two months of the accident and managed to see that he is put in the place of the pillion rider and not the rider who was at fault. The Tribunal therefore shirked its responsibility while analysing the evidence on record. Since there have been a number of cases wherein claims have been made and this Court also had occasion to deal with a case where though the vehicle insured was not involved in an accident at all, yet the police took the vehicle and thereby Use innocent owner was drawn to the Court. Hence the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant has to be accepted with all force and consequently the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant was only a pillion rider in the vehicle driven by his brother, has to be set aside. Consequently the insurance company will have to be absolved of its liability. It is the burden on the part of the owner of the motor vehicle to satisfy the award amount.

Before leaving this case, I am also constrained to observed that a copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to all the Claims Tribunals in the State for guidance and to ensure that no false claims are allowed by the Claims Tribunal or no person is allowed to play a fraud on the Court. A copy of this judgment shall also be sent to the Commissioner of Police in Bangalore for necessary action and also to see to it that the charge-sheet that is filed in accidents claims cases reflect the true state of affairs so as to see that justice does not suffer at the hands of persons who have no regard for law and to the legal system.

At this stage, Sri O. Mahesh, learned Counsel for the appellant-insurance company also submitted that the insurance company was drawn to the Court to fight out a case which had occasioned on account of the fraud played by the claimant. Therefore, for the time and energy spent by the insurance company in litigating the case, which is not a genuine one, the claimant be directed to pay costs to the insurance company. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the above prayer made also deserves to be accepted so as to send out a message to all such claimants who make it a habit to file false claim petitions in order to receive compensation from the Tribunals. Therefore, in the instant case costs of Rs. 5,000/- shall be payable by the respondent-claimant to the insurance company. The said costs shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment failing which the insurance company is at liberty to take necessary coercive steps to recover the amount, as is open to it in law.

The amount deposited by the insurance company be refunded to it.