In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has ordered a fresh hearing for the Motor Vehicle Compensation case. This decision comes after discussions regarding fake cases under the Motor Vehicles Act and crucial aspects of the claim petition filed almost three years after the accident. All parties involved are set to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings. Stay informed with the latest updates on this case. #DelhiHighCourt #MotorVehicleCompensation
Facts
- The accident occurred on 13.07.2019 involving a bus driven by Paramjit Singh
- The bus overturned after trying to overtake another vehicle, resulting in casualties and injuries
- An FIR under Sections 279/304-A/337/338 IPC was registered at PS Thanesar Sadar, Kurukshetra
- The claim petition was filed on 22.04.2022, almost three years after the accident
- Serious concerns were expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court about fake claims under the Motor Vehicles Act
- Alarming situation of fake claims noted with significant compensation paid and cases pending
- The driver, Paramjit Singh, drove recklessly leading to the accident
- A passenger, Smt. Geeta Devi, died in the accident while others sustained severe injuries
- Details of the driver, bus owner, and insurance company provided
- Instances of fake claims and malpractices highlighted involving advocates and courts
Arguments
- Shri Atul Nanda and Shri Vishnu Mehra, representing the insurance companies, discussed the advocates’ modus operandi in filing fake cases under Motor Vehicles Act and Workmen Compensation Act.
- Various methods of filing fake compensation petitions were highlighted, including converting non-road accident injuries into road accident claims, fraudulent implantation of vehicles and drivers, and filing multiple claims for the same incident at different locations.
- Claim applications are often submitted to multiple MACT Tribunals and authorities under the Employees Compensation Act, along with fake insurance policies, fabricated income documents, and medical records for inflated compensation.
Analysis
- The claim petition was filed two years and eleven months after the accident without essential documents like certified copy of Final Report/Charge-Sheet and relevant documents.
- The court raised suspicions about the correctness of the version presented due to missing crucial documents.
- The court discussed the implementation of provisions by police stations and Claims Tribunals, suggesting compliance by specific deadlines.
- The role of the amicus curiae in submitting reports and recommendations was acknowledged.
- The court proposed issuing directions to police authorities, Claims Tribunals, insurance companies, and the government for effective handling of motor vehicle claims.
- Cases related to connivance, fake persons in accidents, filing same petitions in multiple courts, and other fraudulent practices were highlighted.
- The court emphasized the importance of following legal procedures, registration of accident reports as compensation applications, and prompt disbursement of compensation.
- Various shortcomings in the present claim petition were pointed out, including lack of timely filing, missing essential documents like Charge-Sheet and FIR, and incomplete information.
- The court noted the need for disclosure of complete factual and legal details to ensure a fair trial process.
- The police and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals have not implemented mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Rule 150 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 prescribes the form (No.54) of the Police Report required under section 158(6) of the Act.
- The Court emphasized the need for implementing these provisions and directed all State Governments and Union Territories to ensure compliance.
- Efforts are needed to prevent exploitation of accident victims and their families in claiming compensation.
- Appropriate action should be taken against officials who fail to comply with the provisions.
- The Act mandates timely registration of motor accident claims to expedite compensation determination.
- Failure to comply with reporting requirements to the Claims Tribunal and insurers can result in delayed compensation.
- Instances of fraud and fake claims in compensation petitions have been noted, prompting the need for vigilance.
- The police are responsible for notifying the victim or their family, as well as the driver, owner, and insurer of the first hearing date set by the Tribunal.
- The notification should be sent in a timely manner to ensure all parties are aware of the proceedings.
- All claimants submitted on affidavit that they have not filed any petition elsewhere.
- All claimants are permanent residents of Delhi, confirming jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
- Non-compliance of Section 158(6) of MV Act by Investigating Officer does not prejudice the claimants’ pursuit of their claims as per the law.
Decision
- The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 03.06.2024 for further hearing.
- 11 revision petitions are to be addressed.
- The judgement of 2022 is set aside.
- No opinion on the merits of the case is expressed.
- Applicants/petitioners must submit all relevant documents by the next date of hearing.
- The matter is sent back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing and trial in accordance with the law.
Case Title: NARENDRA GUPTA Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH & ORS. (2024:DHC:3951)
Case Number: C.R.P.-157/2022
