New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Arun Uttamrao Ingle & Ors.

Heard. With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, in Claim Petition No.156 of 2015, whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.47,08,000/- to the petitioners’ therein.

The principle contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the entire case put forth by the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is not trustworthy. It is submitted that the claimants, by introducing and examining witnesses who allegedly claimed to be eye-witnesses to the accident, sought to establish that the vehicle insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, was involved in the accident, though the initial report was lodged against an unknown vehicle. Hence, seeks indulgence of this Court in the matter.

This Court is conscious of the settled position of law that proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are required to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and standard of proof applicable to the criminal proceeding, is not required to be insisted in claim petition. At the same time, where the material on record gives rise to a serious and reasonable doubt regarding the manner in which the offending vehicle has subsequently been identified, the Court can not shut its eyes. This Court is required to take a judicial note of the fact that in the motor accident cases, in some cases, attempts are made to introduce subsequently discovered or interested witnesses with a view to establish involvement of a particular vehicle and thereby, secure compensation from Insurance Company. Such cases, however, have to distinguish from genuine claims where the involvement of the offending vehicle is establish by reliable evidence. Each case therefore, must be examined on its own fact.

In cases where the accident is promptly reported and the contemporaneous material discloses the involvement of the offending vehicle, ordinarily there would be no reasons to doubt the claim merely because the standard of proof is that of preponderance of probabilities. However, where the subsequent identification of the vehicle is founded upon series of circumstances which appear inherently improbable or mutually inconsistent, the Court is required to examine the entire chain of circumstances with due care.

It is well settled proposition of law that where fraud upon the Court or abuse of the process of law is established by cogent material, such conduct cannot be permitted to go unchecked. The Court is required to deal with such conduct firmly and in accordance with law. If claim is found to be false, action in accordance with the applicable penal law can also be considered.

In the present case, it is the submission of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that the cousin brother of the deceased Bhushan Bansidhar Ingle, lodged a complaint to the Police Station Mana, District Akola, on 13.11.2014, which was registered as Crime No.97/2014. As per complaint on 13.11.2014 at around 06:00 to 06:30 p.m. when he started his journey towards Murtijapur, near about at 07:30 p.m., he reached to the village Chinchkhed (Shivar), which is on National Highway No.6. At that time, he saw that an accident had occurred and so many persons had gathered there at the spot of incidence. Therefore, he stopped his vehicle and proceeded towards the place of accident to ascertain what had happened.

At that time, he noticed that a two-wheeler bearing No.MH-30-X-0860, was lying on the road and that one person was lying near the vehicle. He recognized that person as his cousin brother, namely Suraj Ingle. Therefore, on the basis of information which was made available to him, he has lodged a complaint stating that by an unknown vehicle, two wheeler bearing registration No.MH-30-X-0860 has been dashed and in the said accident, his cousin brother had expired. As such, against an unknown vehicle, the offence was registered as Crime No.97 of 2014.

It is also pointed out that in the present matter, the charge sheet was filed by the Investigation Officer against one Prafulla Bhatkar. While filing the charge sheet, the statement of father of the deceased was recorded. He stated that on 05.12.2014, when he was at the S.T. Bus Stand at Akola, he heard from certain persons who were standing nearby, that they were the eyewitnesses of the accident dated 13.11.2014 took place at Chinchkhed (Shivar). He, therefore, went to them and came to know that one Mohd. Kasam Abdul Sayyed, was claiming to have witness the accident. The police machinery recorded the statement of Mohd. Kasam Abdul Sayyed, on 07.12.2014. According to his statement, Prafulla Bhatkar, was driving the offending vehicle i.e. Maruti Car bearing registration No.MH-12-EB-8269, was involved in the accident and accident had occurred because of his rash and negligent driving. On the basis of this, the charge-sheet was filed in the matter.

The claimants thereafter, filed claim petition for compensation in the matter before the learned Tribunal. According to them, deceased was working Head Constable in SRPF and have salary of Rs.31,164/- per month. He was unmarried. They claimed compensation of Rs.53,59,000/-. According to them, offending vehicle involved in the accident was Maruti Car driven by Prafulla Bhatkar, which was insured with appellant-Insurance Company. Hence, on the basis of these documents, they claimed compensation in the matter before the learned Tribunal.

It is further pertinent to note that to establish their case before the learned Tribunal, the evidence of father of the deceased was recorded who has reiterated that after the registration of the offence, when he was at Akola Bus Stand, he came to know that some persons who were standing nearby, were discussing about an accident, which took place on 13.11.2014. Therefore, he has made an inquiry and came to know that one Mohammad Kasam Abdul Sayyed, Retired S.T. Driver, has witnessed the accident. According to said persons, on 13.11.2014, along with his nephew, while traveling from Akola to Badnera, at that time near about 07:30 p.m. he noticed that the offending vehicle bearing registration No.MH-12-EB-8269, which was going from Akola to Amravati, in a high speed has overtook a truck and the vehicle from which the deceased was coming from opposite side, was dashed by Maroti Car. At that time he noted the vehicle number and noted in his diary. As such, offending vehicle involved in the matter.

It is also pointed out that the statement of the Mohammad Kasam Abdul Sayyed, was also recorded before the learned Tribunal, wherein, he has also stated the same facts before the learned Tribunal. On the basis of his statement, it is held that the offending vehicle was involved in the matter and accordingly, as the vehicle was insured with present appellant-Insurance Company, the appellant-Insurance Company, was directed to pay the compensation by the learned Tribunal.

In the light of the aforessaid evidence and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company, has approached before this Court and submitted that circumstances surrounding the identification of the offending vehicle are highly unusual. According to him, in present case, FIR was registered against an unknown person by the cousin brother of the deceased, who was allegedly went on the same road, then the other fact is that the father of the deceased after the registration of the offence was at Bus stand at that time, he came across to some persons who were talking about the accident of his son and Mohd. Kasam Abdul Sayyed, was then trace out as an eye-witness of the said incident. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed against the person namely Prafulla Bhatkar, who was allegedly driving the offending vehicle. This sequence of events and alleged discovery of eye-witness raises serious doubt about genuineness of the version of the claimants.

It is further significant to note that in criminal case registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, he was acquitted by the learned Magistrate. It is recorded in the order that as per the FIR, offence was registered against an unknown vehicle Driver and thereafter, the said Prafulla Bhatkar, was arrested. But, the Investigating Officer who was material witness to unfold the controversy, failed to appear before the learned Magistrate, therefore, the said Prafulla Bhatkar, was acquitted by the judgment of the learned Magistrate dated 19.12.2018.

In such factual background, the learned Tribunal has required to examine the entire chain of circumstances with due judicial scrutiny. But after perusal of record, it is seen that chain of circumstances was not properly unfold before the learned Tribunal. Appellant-Insurance Company has first time raised seriously all these issue. The appellant-Insurance Company, was also not sufficiently diligent in defending the claim petition, several of circumstances now relied upon do not appear to have been adequately brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal.

In the normal course, such a submission of the appellant would not, by itself, persuade this Court to interfere with the Award passed by the Claim Tribunal. But as this Court, came across some cases where the claimants are found to be misusing the provisions of law and taking the undue benefits of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that only on the preponderance of the probabilities, the matters are required to be decided, are adopting innovative ways to get compensation from Insurance Company. This practice needs to be deprecated and person who did not approach with clean hands, cannot be held responsible for any relief in such cases. The principle of preponderance of probabilities does not dispense with the requirement of establishing the basic facts constituting the claim by credible evidence.

The above facts which are noticed by this Court, require a closer examination. In the present case, the claimants may be correct that subsequent events occurred in the manner stated by them. However, in my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has not adequately considered the cumulative of these circumstances. So also the appellant-Insurance Company, did not take appropriate steps to place all relevant material on record and to effectively challenge the evidence while prosecuting their cause before the learned Tribunal.

In the circumstances matter requires reconsideration. The learned Tribunal shall examine the entire evidence and chain of circumstances afresh and thereafter, determine whether the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle is established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Upon such re-consideration of the entire issues involved in the matter, learned Tribunal shall determine the entitlement of payment of compensation, in accordance with law. In view of above, following Order is passed :-

In view of above, the first appeal stands disposed of with above directions. No order as to costs.