JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J.
1. These appeals have been preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the separate orders and judgment dated 15.4.2002 given in M.A.C.P. Nos. 86 and 87 of 1994. The appellant Sanjai Singh is son of Rajendra Singh and both allege to have received injuries in the same accident and, therefore, both the appeals are being decided by a common order. F.A.F.O. No. 798 of 2002 arising out of M.A.C.P. No. 86 of 1994 (Rajendra Singh v. Vinita Yadav) shall be treated as the leading case.
2. The case set-up by the claimant was that at about 10 a.m. on 9.11.93 Rajendra Singh and his son Sanjai Singh were going towards Bulandshahr on a Vicky when they were hit by an Ambassador car which was being driven rashly and negligently. Both the claimants alleged to have received injuries in the accident and they were rushed to a private clinic but the doctor referred them to Delhi where they were treated in Hindu Rao Hospital. The claim petition was contested by the owners of the Ambassador car, namely, Vinita Yadav and Rajesh on the ground that no such accident as alleged took place and the claimants had not received any injury from their car. They further pleaded that the claim petition had been filed on absolutely false grounds. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer of the vehicle) also contested the claim petition. The claim petition was allowed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by the judgment and order dated 15.1.1998 and Rs. 3,55,000 was awarded as compensation to Rajendra Singh and Rs. 1,52,000 to Sanjai Singh. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition.
3. Subsequently, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. received information that the claimants had not received injuries in any accident by Ambassador car No. DL 2C-9743 which was owned by Vinita Yadav but had received injuries in an accident of a tractor on which they were travelling. The insurance company, therefore, filed a review petition, which was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. This order was challenged by filing a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36169 of 1998 in this court but the same was rejected on 7.4.1999. Thereafter, the insurance company preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 2087 and 2088 of 2000 before the Apex Court which was decided by the judgment and order dated 4.3.2000 and the judgment is reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh 2000 ACJ 1032 (SC). Paras 15, 16 and 17 of the reports are being reproduced below:
(15) Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No court or Tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim.
(16) The allegation made by the appellant insurance company, that claimants were not involved in the accident which they described in the claim petition, cannot be brushed aside without further probe into the matter, for, the said allegation has not been specifically denied by the claimants when they were called upon to file objections to the applications for recalling of the awards. The claimants then confined their resistance to the plea that the application for recall is not legally maintainable. Therefore, we strongly feel that the claim must be allowed to be resisted, on the ground of fraud now alleged by the insurance company. If we fail to afford to the insurance company an opportunity to substantiate its contentions it might certainly lead to a serious miscarriage of justice.
(17) In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders and quash the awards passed by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants. We direct the Claims Tribunal to consider the claims put forth by the claimants afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to the appellant insurance company to substantiate its allegations. Opportunity must be afforded to the claimants also to rebut the allegations.
4. After remand, the insurance company filed additional written statement on the grounds, inter alia, that on 9.11.93 claimant Rajendra Singh and his son Sanjai Singh were going on a tractor-trolley. The tractor suddenly went into a ditch and on account of serious jerk, both of them fell down and were pushed under the wheels of the tractor-trolley in which they received injuries. They were taken to Hindu Rao Hospital in Delhi where they were provided medical aid. It was also pleaded that no accident took place from the Ambassador car bearing registration No. DL 2C-9743 owned by Vinita Yadav which had been insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. It was pleaded that the claim petition had been filed on absolutely false and incorrect ground.
5. Before the Claims Tribunal, the insurer examined three witnesses, namely, DW 1 Kanti Prasad, constable of P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi, DW 2 Karan Singh, A.S.I. of P.C.R. Delhi and DW 3 R.P. Gautam, Inspector Incharge, P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi. It also filed copy of the G.D. dated 9.11.1993, copy of the report dated 9.11.1993 of P.S. Subzi Mandi and photocopies of the statements of claimant Rajendra Singh and his another son Sukhendra Pal Singh which had been recorded by Karan Singh, A.S.I. on 9.11.1993. The evidence of these witnesses and the documentary evidence show that after the claimant Rajendra Singh and his son Sanjai Singh had been admitted in Bara Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi, an information was sent from there to P.S., Subzi Mandi. Thereafter Karan Singh, A.S.I. was sent to the hospital to investigate the matter and he recorded statements of two injured and Sukhendra Pal Singh. In their statements, the claimants Rajendra Singh and Sanjai Singh and also Sukhendra Pal Singh, son of Rajendra Singh stated before the A.S.I. that the two injured were going on tractor-trolley and the tractor suddenly went into a ditch due to which tractor overturned and they received injuries. They clearly stated that they received injuries from the accident to the tractor.
6. It is admitted by the claimants that they received injuries on 9.11.1993 and that they were taken to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital where they were medically treated. Thus they admit their presence in Bara Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi on 9.11.1993. The case set-up by the claimants that they received injuries on account of their Vicky being hit by an Ambassador car No. DL 2C-9743 was disclosed for the first time when an F.I.R. was lodged on 11.12.1993. Therefore, this version that accident took place by an Ambassador car was brought forward 32 days after the so-called accident. The explanation given by the claimants for this inordinate delay is that they remained admitted in the hospital from 9.11.1993 to 27.11.1993 and thereafter remained with their relative in Delhi up to 8.12.1993.
7. In view of the evidence adduced by the insurance company subsequent to the remand by the Supreme Court, it is not at all possible to believe the version of the claimants that they received injuries in an accident by the Ambassador car owned by Vinita Yadav. This version of their saw the light of the day for the first time 32 days after the alleged accident when the F.I.R. was lodged. Sukhendra Pal Singh who is son of the claimant Rajendra Singh had not received any injury and as such there is no reason why he did not lodge the F.I.R. of the accident promptly disclosing the manner in which the claimants received injuries. According to the own version of the claimants, they were discharged from hospital on 27.11.1993 but even thereafter the F.I.R. was not lodged for another 14 days. The testimony of three witnesses examined by the insurance company DW 1 Kanti Prasad, DW 2 Karan Singh, A.S.I. and DW 3 R.P. Gautam, Inspector Incharge of P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi and the documents proved by them show that after an information had been sent by the hospital to the police station, Karan Singh, A.S.I, went there and recorded statements of both the claimants and Sukhedra Pal Singh on the same day, i.e., on 9.11.1993, wherein they stated that they had received injuries on account of overturning of tractor-trolley in which they were travelling. The claimants have not disputed the fact that their statements had been recorded by Karan Singh, A.S.I., P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi. There is absolutely no reason why these public officers would prepare forged documents or depose falsely. Thus from the material on record, the case set up by the claimants that they received injuries on account of dashing of Ambassador car No. DL 2C-9743 with the Vicky on which they were travelling is proved to be absolutely false.
8. Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the claim petitions had been earlier allowed by the judgment and order dated 15.1.1998 and the Tribunal was now hearing a review petition and, therefore, it was not open to it to reappraise the evidence all over again. The learned Counsel has also submitted that review petition could not be allowed as there was no error apparent in the judgment and order dated 15.1.1998. We are unable to accept the contentions raised. The order passed by the Apex Court shows that the earlier award given by the Tribunal was set aside and the Claims Tribunal was directed to consider the case afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the insurance company. Therefore, the matter was being heard de novo by the Claims Tribunal where it was required to examine the evidence which had been subsequently adduced by the insurance company and it was not a review petition. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the testimony of the claimants and their witness Mahendra Singh established that the accident took place with an Ambassador car. Mahendra Singh who had been examined by the claimants was highly interested witness as he had close relations with the claimants. The Tribunal has given good reasons for not placing reliance on his testimony. The claimants have not been able to explain the statements which were given by them and also by Sukhendra Pal Singh who is none else but the own son of Rajendra Singh before the Delhi Police on that very day on which they received the injuries wherein they said that the injuries were caused due to accident of the tractor on which they were travelling. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the claimants set-up an absolutely false case and they are not entitled to any compensation.
9. Both the appeals lack merit and are hereby dismissed summarily under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code.