Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 217 (KER)

. v. ANIL KUMAR

2017-01-31

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. This contempt of court case is taken suo motu framing memo of charges based on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 01.04.2016 in MACA No. 284/2016. The said appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in OP(MV) No.526/2013. 2. As borne out from the pleadings and materials on record, a motor accident occurred on 03.07.2012 involving a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-06-D-2808 owned by the respondent herein. One Jabbar @ Uduppi Jabbar was cited as the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. The Tribunal after considering the materials on record found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the said Jabbar. Since he was not holding a valid driving licence, the insurance company, namely the United India Insurance Company Limited, was exonerated from the liability and the insurer who was directed to deposit the compensation amount before Tribunal was permitted to recover the said amount from Jabbar and the owner of the vehicle in question (the respondent herein). The award passed by the Tribunal dated 21.07.2014 was an ex-parte award. To set aside the ex-parte award, the respondent herein filed I.A. No.1863/2014 contending, inter alia, that the first respondent before the Tribunal was not his driver. The Tribunal by an order dated 02.05.2015 condoned the delay in filing IA No.1863/2014, on the respondent herein executing a security bond for Rs.6,00,000/- with two solvent sureties having landed properties and producing original title deed on or before 14.05.2015. 3. Challenging the said order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent herein filed OP(MV) No.82/2015 before this Court, contending that, at the time of accident he himself was driving the vehicle and since he is having a valid driving licence, the Tribunal went wrong in exonerating the insurer from the liability to pay the compensation amount. 4. Taking note of the said submission made by the respondent herein, this Court, by judgment dated 28.07.2016 allowed OP(MV) No.82/2015 quashing the condition imposed by the Tribunal while setting aside the ex-parte award and the Tribunal was directed to reconsider the award to the extent the insurer was granted recovery right. 5. 4. Taking note of the said submission made by the respondent herein, this Court, by judgment dated 28.07.2016 allowed OP(MV) No.82/2015 quashing the condition imposed by the Tribunal while setting aside the ex-parte award and the Tribunal was directed to reconsider the award to the extent the insurer was granted recovery right. 5. On reconsideration the Tribunal found that at the time of accident the respondent herein was not driving the vehicle and it was being driven by Jabbar (first respondent before the Tribunal) who admittedly do not have any valid driving licence. Accordingly, the insurer was again exonerated by the award dated 15.12.2015. 6. The said award passed by the Tribunal was under challenge before this Court in MACA No.284/2016. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us [AKN(J)] was a member, found from the Police records placed for consideration before this Court that, on 10.07.2012 respondent herein made an endorsement on the notice sent by Police that, on 03.07.2012 the lorry involved in the accident was driven by a person named 'Jabbar' (who is none other than the first respondent before the Tribunal). Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/-. Paragraphs 9, 10 and the concluding paragraph of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 01.04.2016 in MACA No.282/2016 read thus: "9. Now, on going through the police records placed for consideration before this Court, it is seen that the appellant herein was shown as 'charge witness No. 13 (CW13)'. It is also seen that, pursuant to the accident, the vehicle was taken to custody and the same was kept in the premises of the police station. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the appellant on 09.07.2012', asking the appellant/owner of the lorry to produce documents/particulars in respect of the vehicle and also as to the particulars of the driver, who was driving the vehicle on the date and time of the accident. Notice sent by the police is seen accepted by the appellant, putting his signature. An endorsement has been made on 10.07.2012 by him, to the effect that on 03.07.2012, the lorry bearing No. KL 6 D 2808 owned by him was driven by a person namely 'Jabbar' at 11 a.m. i.e. at the time of the accident. Notice sent by the police is seen accepted by the appellant, putting his signature. An endorsement has been made on 10.07.2012 by him, to the effect that on 03.07.2012, the lorry bearing No. KL 6 D 2808 owned by him was driven by a person namely 'Jabbar' at 11 a.m. i.e. at the time of the accident. This endorsement also contains the signature of the appellant, which prima facie tallies with the signature in the affidavits filed in support of the I.A. filed before this Court in the appeal and also in relation to O.P (MAC) No. 82 of 2015. It is also stated that the statement of the appellant was recorded by the police on 04.07.2012. On going through the proceedings as above, it is seen that the appellant was seemingly aware of the of sequence of events, particularly as to the driver, as revealed by himself, and the steps being pursued by the police leading to finalization of the investigation and submission of charge sheet under Section 173 of Cr. P.C.; in turn leading to C.C. No. 87 of 2013. The custody of the vehicle was also obtained by the appellant on 3rd party kychit' from the police. This Court is of the prima facie view that, it may involve various offences under the IPC and may have to be proceeded against. This Court finds that, based on the incriminating circumstances noted above, the affidavits filed before this Court do not contain the actual facts and figures and there is much suppression of the factual particulars, which cannot be left unnoticed. Filing of false affidavit or misrepresentation or raising pleadings in a casual manner will amount to contempt of Court as held by the Apex Court in Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Hariyana [ (1995) 3 SCC 757 ]. The Apex Court had made it clear that, such attempt has to be dealt with iron hand, to see that the stream of justice is not poisoned by any unscrupulous persons. We find that there is absolutely no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only). 10. Now comes the question as to whom, the cost is payable. We find that there is absolutely no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only). 10. Now comes the question as to whom, the cost is payable. By virtue of the course and events, since there was no much effort from the part of any of the respondents in bringing the truth to light, and since no party shall be permitted to take the Court for a ride, we find it fit and proper to order the cost to be paid to the Kerala State High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The Registrar General shall issue necessary certificate to the beneficiary, in accordance with law. The Registry shall also serve a copy of the verdict to the beneficiary for information. In view of the incriminating circumstances as stated above, the Registry is directed to register a 'suo motu' contempt of court case against the appellant herein, raising a draft charge and place it before this Court for further consideration. A copy of the judgment shall be placed in the said proceedings. Case records submitted by the learned Government Pleader and the Lower Court Records procured from the Court below, shall be kept in the safe custody of the Registrar General for the time being." It was based on the said judgment that the present suo motu contempt case has been registered against the respondent herein/first respondent in MACA No.284/2016. 7. In view of the incriminating circumstances stated in the judgment of the Division Bench dated 01.04.2016 in M.A.C.A.No.284/2016 this suo motu contempt case is registered against the respondent herein. On receipt of notice, the respondent/contemnor entered appearance and filed an affidavit dated 14.12.2016 tendering apology for stating incorrect facts in the pleadings filed before this Court in O.P.(MAC)No.82/2015 and M.A.C.A.No.284/2016 and in O.P.(MV).No.526/2013 filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. 8. Since we were not satisfied with the contents of the affidavit filed by the respondent/contemnor dated 14.12.2016 the learned counsel submitted that the respondent/contemnor would file an additional affidavit admitting the guilt and offering unconditional apology. Having regard to the facts involved in the matter and the serious allegations raised against the respondent/contemnor, we observed that heavy cost need to be imposed. Then the learned counsel submitted that leniency may be shown in favour of the respondent/contemnor by permitting him to deposit a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. Having regard to the facts involved in the matter and the serious allegations raised against the respondent/contemnor, we observed that heavy cost need to be imposed. Then the learned counsel submitted that leniency may be shown in favour of the respondent/contemnor by permitting him to deposit a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. Recording the said submission of the learned counsel the case was adjourned to 31.1.2017 and it was also made clear that in the meanwhile the cost should be deposited before the Registry by the respondent/contemnor. 9. In terms of the order dated 16.1.2017 the respondent/contemnor deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Registry on 27.1.2017. He has also filed an additional affidavit dated 30.1.2017 tendering unconditional apology for the contempt of court committed by him. 10. Since the contempt of court committed by the respondent/contemnor, as stated hereinbefore, is grave in nature he cannot be left free based on the unconditional apology tendered in his additional affidavit dated 30.1.2017. Filing of false affidavit or misrepresentation or raising pleadings in a casual manner will amount to contempt of court as held by the Apex Court in Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Hariyana [ (1995) 3 SCC 757 ]. In the said decision the Apex Court has made it clear that, such attempt has to be dealt with iron hand, to see that the stream of justice is not poisoned by any unscrupulous persons. In such circumstances, the respondent/contemnor is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in terms of Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The said amount of fine shall be adjusted from Rs.1,00,000/- already deposited by the respondent/contemnor before the Registry on 27.01.2017. The balance amount deposited shall be treated as the cost imposed on the respondent herein for abuse of the process of Court and wasting considerable judicial time of the Court by filing Original Petitions/appeal raising false contentions. The Contempt Case is disposed of as above.