IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.32181 OF 2013 (GM-AC) Between:
Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No.IX, M.N.Plaza, Pathi Complex, # 5, Vatal Nagaraja Road, Okalipuram, Bangalore, Now represented by its Regional Manager, Regional Office #44/45, Leo Shopping complex, Residency Road, Bangalore-560025. …Petitioner (By Sri A.N.Krishna Swamy, Advocate) And:
1. M.C.Shivakumar, S/o Channamallappa, Now aged about 50 years, R/o #1103, V Cross, K.N.Extension, Triveni Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560022.
2. Siraj Pasha S/o Rafiq Ahmed, Age: Major, # 10, M.K.Naganna Compound, Padarayanapura, Bangalore-560026. … Respondents (V/o dated 30.05.2016 service of notice on R1 and R2 are held sufficient) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 05.06.2013, passed in Misc.No.53/2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Tribunal, Bangalore SCCH-10, as per Annexure-G and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition is directed against the order dated 05.6.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, SCCH-10 in Misc. Petition No.53/2008 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC.
2. Petitioner is a public undertaking company doing General Insurance business. The respondent No.1 herein has filed MVC No.5777/2006 alleging that he has sustained injuries in road traffic accident dated 20.5.2006. He further alleged that when he was walking on the left side of the road, at that point of time, the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No. KA-02/B-5654 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Owing to the impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He contends that he was immediately shifted to K.C. General Hospital, for treatment. After recovery, he has filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
3. After service of notice, the petitioner herein- General Insurance Company has filed written statement. By judgment and award dated 31.11.2017, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1, 71,461/- with interest @ 6%. After disposal of the claim petition, the petitioner-General Insurance Company has come to know that they have made a claim by playing fraud and immediately the petitioner has filed an application before the Tribunal for recalling the order dated 31.11.2017. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the petitioner-General Insurance Company. Being aggrieved by the same, the above writ petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy appearing for the petitioner submits that after service of notice, they have filed their written statement only after the claim petition was disposed of. They came to know that by producing false evidence, the respondents have obtained the judgment and award in their favour. Therefore, they have filed an application for recalling that order on the ground that the award is obtained by playing fraud.
5. He further contended that the Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner as it has not adduced any evidence in MVC No.5777/2006. This finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the materials available on record. Specific case of the petitioner is that they came to know o of the fraud only after the disposal of the claim petition. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
6. Respondents are served and service in respect of respondents is held sufficient.
7. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the writ papers.
8. The respondent No.1 has met with an accident on 20.5.2006 and he has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in MVC No. 5777/2006 alleging that he has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. Pursuant to the claim petition and the written statement filed by the petitioner, materials available on record, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1,71,461/- with interest @ 6%. After the disposal of the claim petition, the respondent has come to know that the claimants had filed a false claim, they have created the documents and adducing false evidence, have obtained the award. To that effect, he has relied on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh and others reported in 2000 ACJ 1032 and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others reported in 2002 ACJ 1950 to contend that if the award is obtained by playing fraud, the parties can approach the very same Tribunal for rectification of award.
9. I have gone through the orders passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given a finding that the petitioner has not adduced any evidence in MVC.No.5777/2006 even after giving sufficient opportunity. This finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the material on record. The specific case of the petitioner-Insurance Company Ltd., is that only after disposal of MVC No.5777/2006, they have come to know that they have obtained award by playing fraud and produced fabricated documents. Without considering this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable.
Writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, the following: ORDER 1. Order dated 05.6.2013 passed by the Tribunal in Misc.No.53/2008 is set aside.
2. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to re- consider Misc.No.53/2008 in accordance with law and for passing appropriate orders.
w Sd/-
JUDGE ssd