The two widows perhaps had good reason to claim compensation after their husbands died in a hit-and-run case. But in the absence of evidence to buttress their claim, they resorted to deception and succeeded in receiving a combined compensation of 14.5 lakh. But after their fraud was exposed, the Madras high court has quashed the claim.
On May 5, 2005 at 4.30pm Stephen Chelladurai was riding a bike with N Illangovan on the pillion. They were going from the city to Chengalpet when near Peramanur village on GST Road they were hit by an unidentified vehicle driven in a rash manner. Chelladurai died on the spot while IIangovan succumbed to injuries on his way to a hospital.
The next year, Chelladurai's wife Chitra and Illangovan's wife E Pushparani approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) stating an auto belonging to A R Iyappan and driven by A R Boobalan was the vehicle which caused the accident. After investigation, S Krishnan, inspector, MM Nagar police station confirmed the auto was involved in the accident. MACT in August 2011, provided compensation of 7.32 lakh to Chitra and 7.28 lakh to Pushparani.
Against the order, United India Insurance, Royapettah, filed an appeal in the Madras high court. After granting an interim stay in February, the court in July 2012 said a chargesheet had not been filed against the driver. It then directed the superintendent of police, Kancheepuram to investigate and file a report.
On March, 5, 2014, the district crime branch submitted its report stating the wives of the victims had made a false complaint. The report also said the police had filed a chargesheet against the owner of the auto, the auto driver, the wives and the police inspector on charges of fraud. There was a collusion between the accused to defraud the insurance company, said the report, adding while the owner had been arrested, others remained absconding.
Explaining the "apparent fraud," Justice S Manikumar said the forensic department had said the injuries were severe and could not have been caused by an auto. The auto involved in the accident was sold four days after the accident and found to be fit by RTO authorities. As such there was a nexus between the accused who "played a fraud in making a bogus claim" and "roped in the auto."
Rapping the tribunal for allowing the claim, the court said "it is the duty of the tribunal to examine the evidence thoroughly..." The court slapped the two women with a fine of 10,000 each and rejected their plea to file a special leave petition in the Supreme Court against its order.
There was a nexus between the accused who "played a fraud in making a bogus claim" and "roped in the auto.
Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Chennai/Court-fines-women-who-faked-evidence-to-get-accident-claim/articleshow/37226093.cms
On May 5, 2005 at 4.30pm Stephen Chelladurai was riding a bike with N Illangovan on the pillion. They were going from the city to Chengalpet when near Peramanur village on GST Road they were hit by an unidentified vehicle driven in a rash manner. Chelladurai died on the spot while IIangovan succumbed to injuries on his way to a hospital.
The next year, Chelladurai's wife Chitra and Illangovan's wife E Pushparani approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) stating an auto belonging to A R Iyappan and driven by A R Boobalan was the vehicle which caused the accident. After investigation, S Krishnan, inspector, MM Nagar police station confirmed the auto was involved in the accident. MACT in August 2011, provided compensation of 7.32 lakh to Chitra and 7.28 lakh to Pushparani.
Against the order, United India Insurance, Royapettah, filed an appeal in the Madras high court. After granting an interim stay in February, the court in July 2012 said a chargesheet had not been filed against the driver. It then directed the superintendent of police, Kancheepuram to investigate and file a report.
On March, 5, 2014, the district crime branch submitted its report stating the wives of the victims had made a false complaint. The report also said the police had filed a chargesheet against the owner of the auto, the auto driver, the wives and the police inspector on charges of fraud. There was a collusion between the accused to defraud the insurance company, said the report, adding while the owner had been arrested, others remained absconding.
Explaining the "apparent fraud," Justice S Manikumar said the forensic department had said the injuries were severe and could not have been caused by an auto. The auto involved in the accident was sold four days after the accident and found to be fit by RTO authorities. As such there was a nexus between the accused who "played a fraud in making a bogus claim" and "roped in the auto."
Rapping the tribunal for allowing the claim, the court said "it is the duty of the tribunal to examine the evidence thoroughly..." The court slapped the two women with a fine of 10,000 each and rejected their plea to file a special leave petition in the Supreme Court against its order.
There was a nexus between the accused who "played a fraud in making a bogus claim" and "roped in the auto.
Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Chennai/Court-fines-women-who-faked-evidence-to-get-accident-claim/articleshow/37226093.cms
Comments
Post a Comment