The Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited vs Parappa

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The respondents, though served, remain unrepresented. The appellant is the insurer, who seeks to question the liability fastened on the appellant by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

The background to the case is as follows:

It is claimed that on 3.11.2003, the mother of respondents 1 and 2 was walking on the left side of the Talikoti-Gadisomanal road and respondent no. 3, who was driving a tempo bearing No. KA-28.M/1479 in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against one Channawwa, the mother of respondents 1 and 2, resulting in grievous injuries and she had succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is in that background that respondents 1 and 2 had lodged a claim for compensation, on the footing that their mother was employed as a coolie and she was earning about Rs. 100/- per day and due to her death, they have not only lost their loving mother, but also the contribution mat she was making to the family. The same was contested by the insurance company and it was highlighted that the initial complaint indicated that it was a case of hit and run, in that, an unknown vehicle had dashed against the mother of respondents 1 and 2 and had gone away. There was no indication as to the type of the vehicle or the person who was driving the same. It was however sought to be contended that by coincidence, respondents 1 and 2, while sitting in a hotel three years after the accident, were discussing the accident. A person nearby had overheard them and volunteered information about the vehicle and the driver and it is thereafter that a case has been registered against the alleged offending vehicle and the driver and a case was instituted claiming compensation. Notwithstanding the suspicion created'' in the manner in which the claim petition was brought, the Tribunal proceeded to award compensation accepting the explanation offered in all naivete. It is that which is sought to be questioned in the present appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellant would point out that going by the sequence of events, it is highly improbable that PW.2, who had allegedly witnessed the accident and had noted the vehicle number, had not chosen to take any further steps in that direction. The Tribunal has also proceeded to accept the explanation, without any hesitation, resulting in gross abuse of process of the court, while it is apparently a fraud played on the court in claiming compensation. It is in this vein that the learned Counsel for the appellant would take this court through the record to demonstrate that when there was no clue as to the type of the vehicle or the manner in which the accident had occurred and when there were no eye witnesses as per the case registered in the first instance, which was closed for want of further information and when there is no indication that the case was reopened on intimation by PW.2 of the details, the Tribunal ought not to have proceeded to accept the case of the claimants, without any further proof or verifying the bona fides of PW.2. The learned Counsel would submit that it is clearly a case of collusion between the owner of the vehicle, which is allegedly shown as the vehicle involved in the accident and the claimants and hence seeks that the judgment be set aside.

Given the sequence of events, it is difficult to accept that notwithstanding that the criminal case has been closed in so far as the accident was concerned, the claimant-respondents have thought it fit to reconstruct the accident through the medium of PW.2 and the Tribunal having accepted the same, is highly irregular and cannot be accepted as having established a claim for compensation as against the vehicle, which is conveniently insured with the present appellants. Respondent no. 3, the owner of the vehicle did not suffer any loss, who would apparently gain if there was collusion between the claimants and himself. Therefore, if it was a situation where the case had been reopened by the Police and on investigation, there was a fresh material evidence that was gathered, which lead to the conclusion that it was the insured vehicle which was actually involved in the accident, there was no difficulty in affirming the judgment of the Tribunal. But when the circumstances are shown to be otherwise, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it is a highly suspicious claim and hence, the Tribunal ought not to have granted the relief.

The appeal is therefore allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is set aside. The amount in deposit to be refunded to the appellants.