Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 466 (GAU)

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Chitra Saikia

2016-05-26

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. M. More, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant (respondent No.1). The respondent Nos.2 & 3 are the driver and owner of the auto-rickshaw but they did not participate in the proceeding. 2. The first respondent filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the M.V. Act”) to seek compensation for the death of her husband Hema Saikia, who allegedly died after a traffic accident which occurred on 31.5.2000 near the Pipoarakuchi Chowka within the Mangaldoi Police Station. The victim was travelling in an auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No. AS-13/5900 and he was fatally injured when the three wheeler overturned to avoid hitting a cow. In the MAC Case No.421/2006, the learned Tribunal considered the Accident Information Report (Exbt.-1) which reflected that the offending vehicle was insured with the New Indian Insurance Company Ltd. Then assessing the income of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency for the claimant and her 4 minor children was quantified at Rs.5,44,000/- and with medical, funeral expenses and loss of consortium computation, Rs.5,99,000/- in total was awarded as compensation and this sum was directed to be paid with 9% interest, from the date of application, till payment. 3. While the Insurance Company was getting ready to disburse the awarded sum, they received information that the G.D. Entry No.256 dated 7.6.2000 of the Pathari Ghat Out Post under the Mangaldoi Police Station is not related to a motor accident case. But since the basis for the conclusion on the road accident was this G.D. Entry, the Insurance Company engaged an investigator to further verify the matter. Then the investigator applied for the extract copy of the Police O.P. G.D. Entry No.256 dated 7.6.2000. In response, the G.D. Entry No.256 dated 16.6.2000 was furnished to the applicant. Surprisingly the G.D. Entry No.256 dated 16.6.2000 (Page-30) relates to the prevalent Conditions near the Police Out post and not connected with any motor accident. But on the other hand, the G.D. Entry No.256 dated 7.6.2000 of the Police O.P., which was made the basis for allowing the insurance claim, related to the auto ricksaw accident. 4. Surprisingly the G.D. Entry No.256 dated 16.6.2000 (Page-30) relates to the prevalent Conditions near the Police Out post and not connected with any motor accident. But on the other hand, the G.D. Entry No.256 dated 7.6.2000 of the Police O.P., which was made the basis for allowing the insurance claim, related to the auto ricksaw accident. 4. Armed with the fresh information, the Insurance Company applied for review of the verdict in the MAC Case No. 421/2006 together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application. However through the impugned order dated 17.3.2011 (Annexure-VIII) in the Misc. Case No.12/2010, the learned Court despite observing that the G.D Entry No.256 dated 16.6.2000 is not related to any road traffic accident opined that, the petition filed after 1½ year can’t be entertained. Thus the delay condonation application was rejected by considering the Insurance Company to be not diligent enough. With these observations the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC) as the MAC Tribunal, dismissed the Misc. Case No.12/2010 by refusing to consider the merit of the Review petition. 5. Assailing the legality of the impugned decision, Mr. R. Goswami, the learned Counsel submits that when compensation is secured through misrepresentation, the concerned Tribunal is empowered to recall its earlier order. Since the Review petition was not considered on merit, Mr. Goswami submits that this has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 6. On the other hand, Mr. M. More, the learned Counsel for the claimant submits that the compensation was awarded on the basis of the G.D. Entry No.256 dated 7.6.2000 and the Insurance Company has failed to produce the contents of this G.D. Entry. But they are trying to project a case of fraud, on the basis of the contents of the G.D. Entry No.256 dated 16.6.2000. Therefore it is argued that a different conclusion is unlikely, if the matter is re-considered by the MAC Tribunal. 7. If what is projected by the Insurance Company is correct, then it is apparent that the Award obtained by the claimant is tainted by fraud. Therefore if we follow the ratio of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh reported in (2000)3 SCC 581 , it has to be declared that the Tribunal is competent to re-visit the Award in order to ascertain, whether the compensation was secured by playing fraud on the Tribunal. 8. Therefore if we follow the ratio of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh reported in (2000)3 SCC 581 , it has to be declared that the Tribunal is competent to re-visit the Award in order to ascertain, whether the compensation was secured by playing fraud on the Tribunal. 8. While the learned Counsel for the claimant reiterates that the Award was secured on the basis of a genuine accident report relating to the G.D. Entry No.256 dated 7.6.2000, Mr. More doesn’t oppose the re-examination of the matter by the MAC Tribunal provided the matter is concluded expeditiously. 9. Considering the above and having regard to the projection made by the Insurance Company in their Review application and the ratio of Rajendra Singh (supra), I allow this writ petition and direct the MAC Tribunal to verify the genuineness of the accident but not the quantum of compensation, after affording due opportunity to the Insurance Company to substantiate their review application. The claimant must get a fair chance to rebut the allegations. The impugned Award dated 30.4.2009 (Annexure-I) in the MAC Case No.461/2006 will abide by the fresh decision of the Tribunal, in pursuant this ordered exercise. However it is made clear that in the event the MAC Tribunal reiterates its earlier Award, the awarded sum must be paid immediately with due interest, in terms of the earlier verdict. To facilitate the fresh exercise, the claimant and the Insurance Company should report before the MAC Tribunal on 20.6.2016. The Registry should immediately transmit a copy of this order to the MAC Tribunal, Darrang, Mangaldai. 10. With the above order, the case stands disposed of.