In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has ordered a fresh hearing in a case related to fictitious claims under the Motor Vehicles Act. The case involving insurance companies will now undergo a thorough legal process to ensure justice prevails. Stay informed about this crucial legal matter.
Facts
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed serious concerns about fake and fabricated claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Directions were issued to Registrars of all High Courts to ascertain doubtful cases and prevent filing of fabricated cases.
- Alarming situation of fake claim cases pending in various districts in Uttar Pradesh was noted.
- Driver Paramjit Singh was driving the bus rashly, leading to an accident involving an over-turned bus.
- FIR No. 306/2019 was registered under Sections 279/304-A/337/338 IPC at PS Thanesar Sadar, Kurukshetra.
- Accident occurred on 13.07.2019, while the claim petition was filed on 22.04.2022 after almost three years.
- Passengers tried to evacuate the bus, resulting in a fire that caused the death of Smt. Geeta Devi and grievous injuries to other passengers.
- Driver Paramjit Singh is from VPO Jhanjoti, the owner Mangat Ram Mehta is from Gurha Singh Chak Shaman, and the insurer is Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. located in Jammu.
- Petitioner boarded a bus from Delhi to Amritsar on 12.07.2019, leading to the unfortunate accident.
- Concerns raised about advocates filing bulk outstation matters in different courts under false pretenses of jurisdiction.
- The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad took cognizance of fake claims filings by advocates and constituted an SIT to investigate.
- Total of 92 criminal cases registered involving advocates in various districts due to suspicious 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 practices were highlighted, such as non-road accident injury-death being misrepresented as road accident claims, fraudulent implantation of vehicles, false implantation of drivers, and claimant implantation.
- Multiple claims for compensation from the same accident were being filed at different locations, both before MACT Tribunals and authorities under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
- Instances of fake/fabricated insurance policies and income/medical documents for exaggerated claims were also noted.
Analysis
- The claim petition has been dismissed due to being filed two years and eleven months after the accident without essential documents.
- The court expresses suspicion regarding the correctness of the information presented without vital documents like Final Reports/Charge-Sheets.
- Several suggestions have been proposed by the learned Amicus Curiae to expedite the adjudication of motor vehicle claims.
- Directions are issued to police authorities and Claims Tribunals for efficient implementation of provisions under Section 158(6) of the Act.
- Suggestions are made for implementation by Insurance Companies and the consideration of the Parliament and Central Government.
- Specific steps are outlined for Claims Tribunals to register accident reports as compensation applications and expedite the process.
- Prosecution instructions are given to enforce accountability for drivers and owners of uninsured vehicles under Section 196 of the Act.
- Cooperation from Transport and Health departments is mandated to facilitate the implementation of Section 158(6) provisions.
- Guidelines are provided for categorizing and disbursing compensation amounts by the Tribunals to ensure timely and appropriate settlements.
- The Court highlighted the non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act by the police and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals.
- Rule 150 of the 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 importance of implementing the provisions of Section 158(6) and Rule 150 and directed all State Governments and Union Territories to ensure compliance.
- Periodical checks by the Inspector General of Police were mandated to ensure adherence to the requirements.
- The significance of timely intimation of accidents to Claims Tribunals and Insurance Companies within 24 hours was underscored.
- Concern was expressed about unscrupulous practices depriving accident victims and their families of full compensation.
- The appointment of an Amicus Curiae was requested by the Court to seek solutions for the challenges faced.
- Faithful implementation of provisions can expedite compensation processes for accident victims.
- The Department of Road Transport and Highways was directed to verify the actions taken periodically and address deviations promptly.
- Non-compliance with the provisions would lead to appropriate action against responsible officials.
- The police are responsible for notifying the victim or their family about the first hearing date set by the Tribunal
- Notification must also be sent to the driver, owner, and insurer involved in the case
- Each claimant confirmed on affidavit that they had not filed any petition elsewhere regarding the accident.
- All claimants are permanent residents of Delhi, so there was no jurisdictional issue.
- The Investigating Officer’s non-compliance with Section 158(6) of MV Act does not prejudice the claimants’ pursuit of their claim petitions.
Decision
- The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal for further hearing on 03.06.2024.
- 11 revision petitions are to be addressed.
- The decision made in 2022 is set aside.
- No opinion on the merits of the case is expressed.
- All relevant documents must be submitted by the applicants/petitioners before the next hearing.
- The matter is sent back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing and trial in accordance with the law.
Case Title: ANKITA GUPTA Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH & ORS. (2024:DHC:3951)
Case Number: C.R.P.-158/2022
