Skip to main content

Court fines women who faked evidence to get accident claim - Madras HC

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

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more