Judgment :- 1. Second respondent insurance company in MVC No.8035/2004 on the file of MACT, Bangalore, has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 8.2.2008 passed therein. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: The case of claimants before the Tribunal is that first claimant is widow of one Muniyappa @ Pullappa, claimants 2 to 4 are his children and 5th claimant is his mother. Though in the body of judgment she is shown as mother, in the cause title she is shown as wife of deceased Muniyappa @ Pullappa. According to claimants, on 27.11.2004 at about 5 pm., when deceased was proceeding in front of the shop of one Shamanna, complainant in FIR, which is at Ex.P1 was hit by a scooter bearing No.KA-05/R.2688. In that behalf complaint is lodged by Shamanna on the same day i.e, on 27.11.2004 at about 9 pm. Based on that complaint, FIR was registered and both are referred to as Ex.P1 before the Tribunal. 3. At this juncture it is necessary to bring on record certain facts. Admittedly, the person who met with accident on 27.11.2004 at 5 pm., in front of Shamanna’s shop at H.Cross was an unknown person to everybody including Shamanna. In the complaint victim is referred to as unknown person, aged about 45 years. In the handwritten complaint of Shamanna, it is stated that two persons who were traveling on scooter No.KA-05/R.2688 from Vijayapura to H.Cross hit the unknown person resulting in his death. It is also stated that the persons who were traveling on the scooter also fell down and suffered injuries. As stated in the complaint, Shamanna enquired with the rider and pillion on the offending scooter as to who they are and he was informed that rider of the scooter is one Usman s/o Rasool Khan of Vijayapur and the person on pillion seat was Moula s/o Abdulla of Kuba Mohalla at Vijayapura. The complaint gives explicit detail about the manner in which accident took place, injuries sustained by the rider and pillion rider of scooter, number of the scooter, the name of rider, the name of pillion everything. Based on that FIR is also prepared. Subsequently, the body of deceased was taken to post mortem. In the inquest report which is prepared on 28th in Sidlaghatta Government Hospital, the body is referred to as that of unknown person. Based on that FIR is also prepared. Subsequently, the body of deceased was taken to post mortem. In the inquest report which is prepared on 28th in Sidlaghatta Government Hospital, the body is referred to as that of unknown person. It is seen on 28.11.2004 a further statement of Shamanna is said to have recorded to state that vehicle which caused accident is not KA-05/R-2688 but it is vehicle No. CKS 7872. 4. It is interesting to note that the original complaint attached to Ex.P1 is in the handwriting of Shammanna, for which he has affixed his signature in Kannada, whereas the further statement said to have taken on 28.11.2004 bears the signature of Shamanna in English. The said further statement does not say how and when he came to know about the mistake regarding the number of vehicle, when he has explicitly stated the number of vehicle, the name and father name of persons who were travelling on that scooter in his own handwriting i.e., immediately after the accident. The next day how did he came to know that what was said by him on previous day is incorrect, is not stated in the alleged further statement. What made him to give further statement is also not forthcoming in the further statement. However, with the assistance of this document it is seen that a charge sheet is filed on 17.12.2004. Based on which criminal prosecution is launched against one Bakaash who is said to be the rider of scooter No.CKS 7872. It is further seen subsequently claim petition is filed by the claimants before the Tribunal contending that the unknown person who died in the accident is one Muniyappa @ Pullappa i.e., husband of first claimant, father of claimants 2 to 4 and son of 5th claimant. There is nothing on record to establish whether they are the legal heirs of deceased Muniyappa and the body which is found is that of Muniyappa. However, claim petition is filed seeking compensation for his death, Simultaneously, criminal proceedings is also initiated by the police against the rider of scooter i.e, Bakaash in CC No.113/2005 on the file of JMFC, Sidlaghatta. 5. However, claim petition is filed seeking compensation for his death, Simultaneously, criminal proceedings is also initiated by the police against the rider of scooter i.e, Bakaash in CC No.113/2005 on the file of JMFC, Sidlaghatta. 5. The claim petition is filed at MACT, Bangalore, wherein claimants in support of their case adduced evidence through first claimant stating that the unknown person who died in motor accident dated 27.11.2004 involving scooter bearing No.CKS 7872 is Muniyappa, husband of first claimant. He was a mason and claimants 2 to 4 are his children and claimant No.5 is the mother of deceased. It is contended that he was earning monthly income of Rs.4,500/-and sought for compensation for his death. In support of their case they examined one Rajanna, Auto driver as PW.2 who has given voluntary statement stating that he has witnessed the rider of scooter No.CKS 7872 causing the accident resulting in the death of Muniyappa. In the said proceedings the Tribunal accepting the pleadings oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to allow the claim petition awarding compensation to claimants in a sum of Rs.4,15,000/-. Out of that Rs.3,78,000/- is towards loss of dependency and Rs.35,000/-towards conventional heads, which comes to Rs.4,13,000/- and is rounded off to Rs.4,15,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the second respondent insurance company has come up in this appeal. 6. Heard the Counsel for appellant and as well as respondents/claimants. On going through the judgment impugned with reference to evidence available on record this Court feel that it is yet another case of fraudulent claim where the hidden handy work of police is seen to a greater extent in implicating the vehicle and also witnesses to substantiate the claim which is made by the claimants. Infact this Court by looking in to the material on record is highly doubtful whether the person who died in the accident in front of Shamanna’s shop on 27.11.2004 is Muniyappa @ Pullappa, husband of first claimant. 7. The entire proceedings commenced by the police after recording FIR reeks of fraud, manipulation and creation of documents. Infact this Court by looking in to the material on record is highly doubtful whether the person who died in the accident in front of Shamanna’s shop on 27.11.2004 is Muniyappa @ Pullappa, husband of first claimant. 7. The entire proceedings commenced by the police after recording FIR reeks of fraud, manipulation and creation of documents. Though Shammanna initially gave complaint stating than an unknown person aged about 45 years was hit by scooter bearing No.KA-05/R.2628 driven by one Usman with another person Moula as pillion on the said scooter the said complaint being handwritten giving complete details regarding the manner in which accident took place, the fact of how the unknown person died, what are the injuries suffered by rider and pillion rider of scooter, its number explicitly being given on 27.11.2004 at 9.00 p.m, i.e., immediately within four hours of the accident is ignored and further documents are created right from the inquest report and other documents as if accident is caused with the involvement of scooter bearing No.CKS 7872. In that, it is seen a further statement is said to have recorded from Shamanna. 8. Before going in to the further statement if the complaint which is tagged on to FIR, Ex.P1 is looked in to, it bears the signature of Shamanna in Kannada, whereas the further statement said to have given from same Shamanna bears his signature in English. Similarly, there are other statements taken by the police from various persons to substantiate that the vehicle which has caused accident is not scooter No.KA-05/R.2688 instead it is scooter bearing No.CKS 7872. For that the police have relied upon the statements of Nagaraja s/o Muniyappa, Suresh s/o Parameshappa, Munikrishnappa s/o Gangappa, Muninarasamma s/o late Muniyappa, Muniyamma s/o late Muniyappa @ Mallappa, Narasimhappa s/o late Muniyappa, Chikkamuniyappa s/o late Muniyappa, Devaraja s/o Ramappa, Rajanna s/o Kalappa. These people are treated as charge sheet witnesses stating to be the witnesses to the accident and persons who are having knowledge of the same. Inspite of recording the statement of said witnesses, the statement of Rajanna is not seen on record. The said Rajanna is examined by claimants as PW.2 in the proceedings before Tribunal, wherein he states that he is Autorickshaw driver on the relevant date. Inspite of recording the statement of said witnesses, the statement of Rajanna is not seen on record. The said Rajanna is examined by claimants as PW.2 in the proceedings before Tribunal, wherein he states that he is Autorickshaw driver on the relevant date. He witnessed the rider of scooter bearing No.CKS 7872 causing the accident resulting in the death of unknown person who is later identified as Muniyappa. 9. However, when said Rajanna is examined before the JMFC, Sidlaghatta in CC No.113/2005 initiated against the rider of scooter bearing No.CKS 7872 under Section 279 and 304A of IPC as PW.2, he goes to the extent of saying that he does not know anything about the accident. He has not seen the accident. He has affixed his signature to the statement based on the instructions of police. Infact in the entire proceedings before the Tribunal it is clearly seen the manipulation done in conducting this matter ie., CC No.113/2005 is not brought to the notice of Tribunal. Incidentally, the officer of insurance company who appears and gives evidence before Tribunal also does not seriously dispute anything giving indication that probably insurance company was also hand in glove with the police and claimants in manipulation of the documents which may not be surprising to this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there is a systematic attempt to commit fraud on the system including against the Tribunal in trying to make a false and fanciful claim to seek compensation making use of the dead body of an unknown person in an accident which has taken place on 27.11.2005. 10. Incidentally, this Court while looking in to the certified copy of the evidence tendered by Rajanna who is PW.2 before the Tribunal has seen in his typed examination-in-chief filed before the Tribunal he has affixed his signature in English which is identified by the counsel for claimants. When the very same person was subjected to evidence before the Court he has affixed his signature at the end of the deposition before the Tribunal in the presence of the Presiding Officer of Tribunal. When the very same person was subjected to evidence before the Court he has affixed his signature at the end of the deposition before the Tribunal in the presence of the Presiding Officer of Tribunal. Whereas if the said two signatures which are alike are compared to the signature found in the evidence of Rajanna before the JMFC, Sidlaghatta, it is totally different and by no stretch of imagination it can be accepted as that of Rajanna’s, who has given evidence before the Tribunal claiming himself to be CW.2 in the charge sheet and the person who has given evidence in CC.No.113/2005 on the file of JMFC, Sidlaghatta as CW.4-PW.2 is one and same, they are totally different, the signature in the deposition before JMFC in CC.No.113/2005 is in Kannada. 11. This clearly gives an indication that the entire proceedings is riddled with manipulation, concoction, fraud and what not. It is necessary at this juncture to state that this kind of litigation is on the rise, particularly, from certain specific areas, where at some time the police officers are highly active in creating such fraudulent documents with the assistance of such unscrupulous documents also by making use of unclaimed bodies false claims are initiated to secure fat compensation. This court has no hesitation or doubt in its mind that the present claim petition is one such claim and the Investigation Officer who has conducted investigation in to the accident in this proceedings appears to be kingpin of the same, who has shown his handiwork in fixing claimants and others for unclaimed dead body of unknown person. 12. Hence, it is just and necessary that the matters is required to be referred to COD to hold a full fledged enquiry in to the matter and to ascertain the involvement of the Investigation Officer, Mr.S.Dasappa, who was working as Circle Inspector of Police of Sidlaghatta at that time. While conducting enquiry the involvement of the officers of insurance company also will have to be looked in to by the COD. Further, it is hereby directed that the COD should immediately initiate enquiry and submit its report to this Court within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment or communication through the registry of this Court. 13. Further, it is hereby directed that the COD should immediately initiate enquiry and submit its report to this Court within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment or communication through the registry of this Court. 13. Now reverting back to the appeal on hand, this Court has no hesitation to say that the entire claim proceedings before the Tribunal is nothing but a make believe fraudulent claim which was initiated by making use of an unknown dead body for unlawful gain with active connivance of the Sidlaghatta Police and other related Government officers who were involved in giving required material, vehicle reports and other reports to substantiate the said fraudulent claim. 14. In that view of matter, the appeal filed by insurance company is allowed. Consequently, the judgment and award dated 8.2.2008 passed by the MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-18) in MVC No.8035/2004 is set aside and the claim petition before the Tribunal is dismissed. In view of the appeal being allowed, the amount in deposit is ordered to be released in favour of appellant insurance company.