Law Web: non examination of material witness

Sunday, 18 May 2025

Karnataka HC: Under which circumstances the motor accident claim tribunal should recall the order of grant of compensation?

It is significant to note that the complaint was lodged by the father of the claimant on 19.1.2007 whereas the claim petition was filed by the minor claimant represented through his mother, natural guardian. The mother of the claimant was examined as PW-1. Complainant, father of the claimant has not stepped into the witness box. The claim petition first bears the signature of the father of the claimant and the same is erased, subsequently instituted through the mother of the claimant. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court on the issue on hand. In the case of United India Insurance co. ltd. v. Rajendra Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that fraud and justice cannot dwell together, it is unrealistic to expect the insurer to resist claim on the basis of fraud at earlier instance without knowledge about fraud. If order is not recalled even after noticing fraud, it leads to serious miscarriage of justice. The Insurance company when it comes to know of any dubious concoction having been made with the sinister object of extracting a claim for compensation after the award has already been passed, no court or Tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim.

{Para 8}

9. In Rajendra Singh v. Vinitha Yadav (supra), it is held that the claimants have not been able to explain the statements which were given by them before the Delhi police on the 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. However, the testimony of the claimants and their witnesses established that the accident took place with an ambassador car. In that context, it is held that the claim set up by the claimants was an absolutely false case and they were not entitled to any compensation. This was a case where the version of the claimants saw the light of the day for the first time, 32 days after the alleged accident when the FIR was lodged.

10. In the case of S.P. Changalavaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath reported in MANU/SC/0192/1994 : AIR 1994 SC 853, it is observed that "fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. A Judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law is the settled proposition of law, such a judgment/decree can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.

11. It is settled legal position that fraud and collusion vitiates even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. Lord Denning in Lazarus Estates Ltd. vs. Beaslay observed at Queens Bench pages 712-713 All England Report page 345-C-D) "No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

M.F.A. No. 2162/2011 [MV]

Decided On: 24.10.2016

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shoukath and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Sujatha, J.

Citation: 2017 ACJ 1840 karnataka HC, MANU/KA/2671/2016.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Under which circumstances non examination of material witness is fatal to motor accident claim petition?

In order to answer this point, it is axiomatic to refer to the factual matrix of the case as available on record. In this context, Ex. R1 plays a pivotal role. Ex. R1 is the register extract maintained by R.L. Jalappa hospital where the claimant was taken treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to the alleged accident. This Ex. R1 clearly establishes the history of injuries sustained by the claimant. Scanning through this document, it can be viewed that one Chand Pasha, the uncle of the claimant, accompanied him to the hospital on the fateful day i.e. 18.10.2006, the history of injuries as gathered from the uncle of the minor claimant/patient reveals that the patient along with his uncle was travelling in a goods auto rikshaw which toppled and the minor sustained injuries. LTM of minor boy was taken as the identification mark and the statements of the uncle of the minor were recorded with his signature. In other words, Ex. R1 bears the signature of Pasha. This crucial witness was not examined by the claimant to discern the truth. It would be inferred that the claimant is suppressing the material facts, particularly, when the specific defence was taken by the appellant/insurer as regards the claimant travelling as a gratuitous passenger. {Para 6}

7. It is an admitted fact that the accident occurred on 18.10.2006 and the complaint was lodged by the father of the claimant on 19.1.2007. It is trite law that no claim can be rejected merely on the ground of delay unless satisfactory explanation is offered for the delay caused in filing the complaint. As could be seen from Ex. P2, certified copy of complaint, it is stated that the complainant delayed filing of complaint due to the assurance given by the elders of the village to settle the dispute but the same is not substantiated by examining any witness on this aspect. Ex. R1 speaks that the claimant, minor boy was travelling in the goods auto accompanied with his uncle, whereas complaint Ex. P2 discloses that the minor boy was standing along with his father at the bus-stop. These inconsistencies are not satisfactorily explained by the claimants. It remains a jumble of facts, unresolved.

13. Considering the aforesaid principles of law and background of facts, it is manifestly clear that it is a case of dubious concoction having made with sinister object of extracting the claim as the claimant if found to be travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, was not entitled to compensation for breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The long time gap between the occurrence of the accident and the filing of the complaint would be the reason for ingeniously designing a device to make a claim for which the claimant was not legally entitled to.