A crucial legal case recently came before the Delhi High Court regarding fake claims and fraudulent practices in the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court’s decision addresses the disturbing trend of fabricated cases, highlighting the need for vigilance against malpractices in filing claim petitions. The ruling seeks to ensure that justice prevails and that victims and their families receive fair compensation. Stay updated on this significant legal development.
Facts
- The accident took place on 13.07.2019 when Paramjit Singh was driving the bus recklessly and it overturned after hitting the divider.
- An FIR (No 306/2019) was lodged under Sections 279/304-A/337/338 IPC at PS Thanesar Sadar, Kurukshetra.
- The claim petition was filed on 22.04.2022, almost three years after the accident.
- Smt. Geeta Devi died in the accident due to the bus catching fire, while other passengers sustained severe injuries.
- The driver Paramjit Singh is from VPO Jhanjoti, Tehsil Ajnala, Amritsar; the owner Mangat Ram Mehta is from Gurha Singh Chak Shaman, Jammu; and the insurance company is Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. based in Jammu.
- Advocates were found filing fake claims, leading to serious concerns about fabricated cases under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted fake claim cases and directed High Courts to investigate suspicious cases to prevent fabricated claims.
- A significant number of criminal cases have been registered against advocates involved in filing fake claims.
Arguments
- Shri Atul Nanda and Shri Vishnu Mehra, representing the insurance companies, discussed the modus operandi of advocates filing fake cases under Motor Vehicles Act and Workmen Compensation Act.
- Various fraudulent methods were highlighted, such as converting non-road accident injuries into road accident claims, false implantation of vehicles, drivers, and claimants, and filing multiple claims at different locations for the same accident.
- It was noted that fake/fabricated insurance policies and income/medical documents were often used to obtain exaggerated compensation in these cases.
Analysis
- The Court/ Tribunal finds considerable merits in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal did not afford an opportunity to place relevant certified copies of the criminal case against the driver of the offending bus on record.
- The sustained in law presented in the case.
- There are glaring aspects such as missing certified copies of the charge-sheet, MLC/ Postmortem Report, and Mechanical Inspection Report.
- The Tribunal failed to consider crucial documents like the FIR Daily Diary, Site Plan, and Verification Report.
- Serious concerns were raised about the need for careful scrutiny of cases to rule out foul play and fabricated claims.
- The Tribunal is obligated to elicit the truth regarding the genuineness of claims and relevant facts.
- Police and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals have not implemented mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- The Court emphasized the need for compliance with Section 158(6) and Rule 150 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
- Efforts are required to ensure prompt intimation of accidents to Claims Tribunals and Insurance Companies.
- The Court appointed Shri Gopal Subramaniam as Amicus Curiae to find solutions regarding compensation distribution.
- Safeguards are essential to ensure full compensation reaches victims and their families.
- The Department of Road Transport and Highways must verify and take action against non-compliance.
- Significant changes in the Motor Vehicles Act aim to expedite claim processes and reduce pendency.
- Fraudulent practices in claim petitions have been noted, emphasizing the need for vigilance and action against such malpractices.
- The police must notify the victim or their family, driver, owner, and insurer of the first hearing date fixed by the Tribunal.
- Notification should be made in case of both injured victims and victims who have died.
- This notification ensures that all relevant parties are informed and can attend the hearing.
- It is crucial for the proper conduct of the legal proceedings and to uphold the rights of all involved.
- Each claimant submitted an affidavit stating they had not filed a claim petition elsewhere.
- All claimants were permanent residents of Delhi, indicating no jurisdictional issues.
- Non-compliance of Section 158(6) of MV Act by the Investigating Officer does not prejudice the claimants’ pursuit of their claim petitions.
Decision
- The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 03.06.2024
- There are 11 revision petitions involved in the case
- The order dated 03.06.2022 is set aside
- This order does not imply any opinion on the merits of the case
- Applicants/petitioners must submit all relevant documents by the next hearing date
- The case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh proceedings and trial according to the law
Case Title: MITHLESH GUPTA Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH & ORS. (2024:DHC:3951)
Case Number: C.R.P.-159/2022
