Chittappa and ors. Vs. the State

.....fraud. further, it is a clear case of fraud played on the court by the claimants with the connivance of 1st respondent. once the insured plays fraud, admits liability with the sole object of foisting liability on the insurance company, though in fact he knew that it was not true, liability of ther insurance company to indemnify such insured ceases. therefore there is no obligation on the part of the insurance company to indemnify the insured even though he has taken the policy and the statute mandates that the insurance company has to indemnify the insured and pay compensation to third party. when fraud is established from the material on record, such statutory obligation stands discharged.- there is no third party liability on the part of the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants. this amount is awarded in order to see that in future such false defences are not filed before court, judicial process is not abused. therefore it is only the 1st respondent/owner who is liable to pay the amount. section 166: [n. kumar & jawad rahim, jj] accident - dismissal of claim petition appealed against fraus et jus munquam cohabitant meaning fraud and justice never dwell together - an attempt on the part of the 1st respondent/ owner to collude with the claimants with the fond hope of saddling the insurance company to pay compensation 1st respondent /owner of the vehicle admitted the accident and had no objection for award of compensation held, even though the owner of the vehicle in unmistakable terms, has admitted the incident, that admission has no value in the eye of law. he ahs admitted something about which he has no knowledge and, which he has not seen.it is clear that the said admission is made with the sole object of getting compensation to the claimants as it is the insurance company which will pay, and not the owner. though admission is the best piece of evidence, it cannot be accepted as gospel truth. the court can insist on proof of..........the fir lodged by the respondent, the police have registered the case in crime no. 172/2000.2. it is the contention of the petitioners that the loading of fir in crime no. 172/2000 actuated with malice and as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the first petitioner, a false case is set up. the counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire version set out in the complaint of rathnamma is false and therefore, liable to be quashed.3. after hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the learned s.p.p. for some time. i feel the petition lacks merit and no relief can be granted. there is nothing illegal on the part of the police registering the fir when a commission of cognizable offence is reported. the mere fact that earlier to the fir in question, a fir was lodged by the first petitioner cannot be a sole basis to disbelieve the varacity of the contents in crime no. 172/2000. the cases have now been registered and the police have taken up investigation and it is only in the process of investigation, the truth would be revealed. it is not proper and possible to appreciate the correctness or otherwise of the contentions raised by the petitioner at this stage, which is very premature. whatever, the contentions, raised are purely factual in nature. unless the investigation is complete and police file the final report, it cannot be said at this stage whether the averments in the fir of crime no. 172/2000 is false or otherwise. therefore, under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed.