Judgment:
V. Jagannathan, J.
1. The driver pleads guilty before the criminal court and he is convicted. Can that plea of guilt by the driver become the sole criterion for allowing the claim petition by the M.A.C.T. when the evidence placed before it raises serious doubts as to the very factum of accident itself? This is the question that has cropped up in this appeal upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal by the Insurance Company, the main ground urged is that the injuries sustained by the claimant on account of he hitting a road-side tree on Bannerghatta road has been transformed into a case of accident involving the vehicle insured with the appellant herein having dashed to the claimant's vehicle on Pandavapura-Srirangapatna road. The pith and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel Shri O. Mahesh for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the claimant: succeeded in getting compensation from the M.A.C.T. by converting a self-accident into an accident involving the vehicle insured with the appellant and the M.A.C.T. accepted the claimant's case and also based its conclusion solely on the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant having pleaded guilty before the criminal court.
3. To elaborate a little further, the facts in brief are that R-l B.C. Kumar filed a claim petition before the M.A.C.T. at. Srirangapatna claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him and, according to the claimant, the said injuries were caused when the motorcycle bearing No. KA-11-Q-1620 came in a rash and negligent manner being driven by the driver concerned and dashed to the claimant, who was waiting near Ganapathi Temple on Pandavapura-Srirangapatna road. The accident, according to the claimant, occurred on 27.6.2006 at 12.00 noon. To support the said stand taken in the claim petition, the claimant let in evidence and produced documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-23 out of which Ex.P-2 is the copy of the F.I.R., Ex.P-3 is the copy of the charge-sheet, Ex.P-4 is the wound certificate, Ex.P-5 is the crime details form, and Ex.P-6 is the I.M.V. report.
4. The appellant Insurance Company also examined one witness as R.W.1 and relied on the documents Ex.R-1, which is the evidence of R.W.I by way of an affidavit, Ex.R-2, letter of authorisation, Ex.R-3, copy of the M.L.C. register extract, and Ex.R-4, the insurance policy issued by it.
5. The learned Presiding Officer of the M.A.C.T., after appreciating the evidence let in by the parties, answered issue No. 1 concerning the factum of accident and the consequent injuries in favour of the claimant by holding that the claimant had proved that the accident occurred on 27.6.2006 at 12.00 noon on Pandavapura-Srirangapatna road when the motorcycle insured with the appellant herein dashed to the claimant and the claim petition was allowed by awarding a sum of Rs. 1,86,480/-.
6. The Insurance Company has questioned the award of the M.A.C.T. basically on the aspect of the very accident itself by contending that the accident never happened in the manner and at the time and place as put forward by the claimant but, on the other hand, it was a false case in the sense, the claimant dashed to a road-side tree on Bannerghatta road, but later got the whole story built up by projecting the case that he was injured on account of the vehicle insured with the appellant hitting him on Pandavapura-Srirangapatna road. As such, the false case filed by the claimant ought to have been taken note by the M.A.C.T. and the claim petition ought to have been dismissed.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, in order to substantiate his argument that a false claim was made by the claimant, at the outset submitted that the accident, according to the claimant, occurred on 27.6.2006 at 12.00 noon, whereas the complaint itself was lodged by the claimant's father on 6.8.2006, almost after 1 1/2 months. Secondly, even as per the case of the claimant, he was discharged from the hospital viz., Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, on 28.7.2006, but the complaint was lodged only on 6.8.2006. The third aspect is that the complaint was lodged not by the claimant, but by the claimant's father and this was on 6.8.2006. On the very day the complaint was lodged by the claimant's father, the crime details document surfaced and on the very same day, the I.M.V. report was also drawn and the mahazar as well as the sketch map were also drawn. The motor accident report was drawn on 10.8.2006. The I.M.V. report does not even mention about the vehicles being seized.
8. The further defect pointed out is that the mahazar was drawn in the absence of the injured claimant, himself and, therefore, it is not known as to how and who pointed out the place of accident to the police. The next infirmity referred to by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is that the stand taken by the claimant before the M.A.C.T. in his evidence is totally inconsistent with the stand taken by his own father in the complaint and other evidence on record. Referring to this aspect, it was pointed out that, according to the claimant himself, soon after the accident and the consequent injuries, the claimant was taken to the Government Hospital at Mandya for treatment But, no document is forthcoming in proof of the claimant having teen treated at the hospital at Mandya. It is then pointed out that the claimant does not whisper in his evidence that when the accident occurred, his father was also along with him but, on the other hand, the complaint lodged by the father indicates that he was also present along with the claimant when the accident occurred.
9. The other defects that were not noticed by the M.A.C.T., according to the appellant's counsel, are that the history of the accident as given by the claimant himself before the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital is that he hit against a road-side tree near Bannerghatta Zoo and sustained injuries and this is clear from the document Ex.R-3 produced by the Insurance Company through its witness. The next part of the material referred to by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is that, R.W. 1, who was examined before the court, has deposed in his evidence that the claimant himself has put his thumb mark at Ex.R-3 and the claimant has not denied his thumb mark in Ex.R-3. Therefore, all these discrepancies in the case of the claimant, give room to doubt the very accident having taken place at, the place and time and the manner as alleged by the claimant in his claim petition. The M.A.C.T., therefore, did not appreciate the entire evidence in proper perspective but relied to a great extent only on the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant having pleaded guilty before the criminal court.
10. Even as regards the plea of guilty is concerned, the document evidencing, plead guilty by the driver was not even marked in evidence and, as such, there is no legal evidence on record to support the claimant's case that the driver pleaded guilty. The last of the circumstances referred to is that the driver who, according to the claimant had pleaded guilty also belong to the very same village from which the claimant also hails and, therefore, the probability of a false case being filed by the claimant with the active co-operation of the driver concerned to enrich the claimant cannot be ruled out.
11. In the face of the above submissions and also placing reliance on the decisions reported in 1997 ACJ 993 and 2000 ACJ 1032, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company argued that the M.A.C.T. ought to have dismissed the claim petition as the claimant was not able to prove that the accident did take place near the Ganapathi Temple on Pandavapura-Srirangapatna road. As such, the learned Counsel sought for the appeal being allowed by setting aside the award of the Tribunal.
12. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for R-l Shri V.N. Madhava Reddy contended that no fault could be found with the reasoning given by the Tribunal insofar as issue No. 1 is concerned and the Tribunal has considered the entire evidence and has carefully analysed the same and has arrived at the conclusion as to the accident having occurred in the manner projected by the claimant in his claim petition. Moreover, the other documents produced by the claimant viz., F.I.R., charge-sheet, wound certificate, mahazar, I.M.V. report, all go to support the claimant's case and, as such, there is no scope to entertain any doubt as regards the factum of accident is concerned.
13. As far as the evidence of R.W. 1 is concerned, the submission made by the learned Counsel is that the said evidence cannot be given much importance because, it is not established as to whether the thumb mark found in Ex.R-3 does belong to the claimant or someone else. Further, it was argued that though the accident occurred on Pandavapura-Srirangapatna road, the claimant was brought to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital at Bangalore for treatment and after the discharge, the complaint came to be lodged by the claimant's father and though there is some delay in lodging the complaint, the over all evidence on record does not give scope to hold that, the complaint is a concocted one or for that matter, the complaint was lodged after due deliberations. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 requires no interference and as far as the pleading of guilt by the driver is concerned, the said circumstance is one such material placed along with other material by the claimant and, therefore, the finding on issue No. 1 by the Tribunal is just and proper.
14. Having thus heard both sides, the first point to be considered is whether the Tribunal could have relied on the circumstance of the driver pleading guilty before the criminal court so as the accept the case of the claimant as having been established in so far as the factum of accident is concerned. At the outset, it has to be stated that there is no legal evidence placed by marking the document concerning the driver having pleaded guilty before the criminal court. Even if for a moment, if we take that the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant had pleaded guilty, can that circumstance become the sole criterion for accepting the case of the claimant and is it not the duty of the M.A.C.T. to appreciate the evidence before it independently of any finding of guilt of the driver by the criminal court
15. The settled position in law is that the claims Tribunal should not and ought not to place sole reliance on the judgment of the criminal court while considering the issue of the factum of the accident and the consequent negligence, as stated in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal. But, the Tribunal will have to assess the evidence before it independently of any finding of the criminal court on the question of the driver pleading guilty. At the most, the circumstance of the driver pleading guilty may be considered as one of the pieces of evidence to support the case of the claimant. But, the Tribunal should not place implicit reliance only on the circumstance of the driver having pleaded guilty before the criminal court and such an approach by the Tribunals will be not only an one sided approach but, at the same time, there is every likelihood of the pleading of guilt by a driver before the criminal court having been obtained by adopting various methods so as to ensure that the claimant succeeds before the M.A.C.T. in getting compensation.
16. The above observation is made with the full knowledge that there has teen spate of cases wherein false claims have been made before the claims Tribunal and false implications are also on the increase. This Court, in several such cases, has found that a self accident is given a turn and it is made to appear as an accident involving a motor vehicle. In fact, in one of the cases decided by this Court on 12.3.2009, in M.F.A. No. 962/2007, this Court; had occasion to make certain observations as regards false cases being filed before the Tribunal and also gave direction to the Tribunals to put themselves on guard and see to it that no person is allowed to abuse the process of law and make unlawful gain to himself by suppressing the true facts.
17. The M.A.C.Ts. are constituted not only to allow the claim petitions which are genuine in nature but, at the same time, the Tribunals also will have to keep in view that compensation should not be awarded mechanically in every case and to accept the case of the claimant as if all that the claimant says about the accident and the injuries is a truthful one. On the other hand, there is a great responsibility on the part of the claims Tribunal to ensure that no false claims are allowed by it. and it is in this context that the claims Tribunals are required to examine the evidence before it very carefully. Merely because a claimant in a particular case comes out with the evidence that the driver of the vehicle is convicted on his pleading guilty, the Tribunal should not go by the plead guilty factor alone, but it is required to appreciate the evidence before it from every angle and if there is a good reason to question the very case of the claimant or doubt the very manner of the accident, in such cases, the Tribunal will have to view the factor of pleading guilty along with the entire evidence placed before it and make an assessment of the whole situation.
18. In this connection, it is worthwhile to refer to the observations of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Pankajbhai Chandulal Patel v. Bharat Transport Co. reported in : 1997 ACJ 993, which decision was referred to by the appellant's counsel and the observations at paragraph-10 of the said judgment can be referred to, to support the aforesaid view taken by me. The said observations are as under:
10. In our view, the judgment of the criminal court is not relevant to prove in a civil court or before the Tribunal, the guilt or innocence of the person driving the vehicle. Evidence before the two courts on the same issue would not be the same as all the witnesses for one or another reason are not examined in both the forums or do not state consistently. At: times, somewhere material evidence is suppressed or witnesses are won over, or driver of the vehicle is made to confess the guilt despite truth being otherwise; so that claimant may not fail before the Tribunal. The law, therefore, does not provide to place sole reliance on the judgment of criminal court making the claim free from claimant's onus to prove the issue of negligence. The claimant has to lead evidence to prove his case. Consequently, negligence or innocence will have to be established independent of the criminal court's finding or judgement. The Tribunal determining the issues arising in petition for compensation has, therefore, to come to its independent finding appreciating the evidence produced before it. The judgment of the criminal court can only show that the concerned driver was convicted or acquitted in the criminal case. At the most, in our view the judgment of the criminal court may provide corroboration to the evidence adduced by the claimant, but. can never be the sole decisive facto qua negligent driving, for the negligence is required to be established by leading necessary evidence. If the statement confessing the guilt is made by the driver of the offending vehicle before the criminal court, it will be, at the most, if made voluntarily, corroborative piece of evidence provided of course it relates to the issue(s) in question before the civil court of Tribunal, but can never be the sole decisive factor as the claimant in compensation petition has to establish his case independent of confessional statement made by the driver. Having regard to the materials on record, if there is a reason to question or doubt the voluntary character of the confession for any reason or owing to fraud, undue influence, allurement, promise, plea, bargain, misrepresentation; or is made or got made pursuant to any device or design or collusion so as to succeed in the claim petition, or there is nothing on record going to show that the statement made relates to the issue in question, or the same wrong under investigation, or the fact made a base for a claim before the civil court or Tribunal, the same has to be kept out of consideration unless the driver appears and explains ruling out the possibility of involuntary character or device or design, or makes it clear that it relates to the same wrong, fact or issue.
19. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, we will have to appreciate the present case and it also has to be added at this juncture that the Apex Court has even gone to the extent of observing that where a fraud has been noticed, the claims Tribunals have the power even to review the award passed by it and this observation came in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh reported in : 2000 ACJ 1032, and the Apex Court held that the Tribunal or for that matter, the court, has the power to review its own order if it is convinced that the order was wrangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim as it would lead to serious miscarriage of justice.
20. Having the above position in law as the yardstick to assess the case before us, as to the truthfullness or otherwise of the case of the claimant, on a careful examination of the entire material on record, I am of the view that the claimant has suppressed the real fact of the matter, inasmuch as the injury sustained by the claimant when the vehicle driver by him hit a roadside tree near Bannerghatta Zoo is sought to be converted into a case of accident involving the vehicle insured with the appellant. This conclusion is very evident from the defects pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant to which I have adverted to earlier. In addition to the said infirmities, it also has to be mentioned that when the witness from the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital viz., R.W. 1, was examined and the case sheet was produced as per Ex.R-3. which document gave the history of the accident, as, on account of the vehicle driven by the claimant having hit a roadside tree near Bannerghatta Zoo, the obvious inference is that the claimant went before the Tribunal and filed a false case.
21. The other circumstances which go to strengthen the said conclusion are that, though the claimant says in his evidence that soon after the accident he was taken to the Government Hospital at Mandya, no document is forthcoming from the Government. Hospital at Mandya to show that the accident occurred at the place and time as mentioned in the claim petition. Secondly, the claimant does not say that his father was present when the accident occurred, but it is otherwise in the complaint filed by his father. The third aspect; is that the accident is said to have occurred on 27.6.2006, but the complaint is lodged on 6.8.2006 and on 6.8/2006, all the other police documents came to picture.
22. The wound certificate was issued by the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital on 14.8.2006. If the accident had occurred on 27.6.2006 and if the claimant had been brought from the place of accident near Mandya to Bangalore on the same day, there was no occasion for the wound certificate to indicate the date 14.8.2006. The probability of the accident having occurred near Bannerghatta Zoo, which is very close to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, and therefore, the injured was brought to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital cannot be ruled out. Moreover, if the accident had occurred at Mandya, which is more than 100 kms from Bangalore, there was no occasion for the injured to be brought all the way to Bangalore and even according to the claimant's case, when he was taken to the Government Hospital at Mandya, nothing prevented the claimant from producing the document from Mandya Hospital if at all the case of the claimant has to be accepted.
23. The mahazar was drawn on 10.8.2006. But, it is surprising as to how it would have been drawn on the said date, when the accident occurred almost two months back i.e., on 27.6.2006. The evidence of R.W. 1 and the document Ex.R-3 give no other scope than to infer, that the injuries sustained by the claimant was on account of he having hit. a roadside tree while driving near Bannerghatta Zoo.
24. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not carefully appreciate the evidence from every angle and had put much emphasis on the submission of the claimant that the driver had pleaded guilty. At the cost of repetition, it has to be mentioned that, to show that the driver of the vehicle pleaded guilty, no document is marked in evidence. Even otherwise, for the reasons already stated, mere pleading guilty before the criminal court itself will not be sufficient to accept the case of a claimant before the M.A.C.T. when the evidence before the claims Tribunal tells a different story and gives rise to doubt the very case of the claimant.
25. In view of the foregoing reasons, the award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained as, in my view, the claimant has failed to establish that the accident occurred on the day, time and place as alleged by him in his claim petition. In other words, a false claim petition was filed in order to make unlawful gain and to make the Insurance Company a victim of such an act on the part of the claimant. Therefore, in order to prevent serious miscarriage of justice, it is necessary to observe before closing this judgment that a copy of this order shall be sent to all the M.A.C.Ts. in the State for guidance.
26. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the award of the Tribunal is set aside and the claim petition is dismissed.
The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.