Click the Play button to listen to article

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court ordered a SIT probe to investigate allegations of collusion by the claimant and the complainant in a motor accident claim, after observing that the parties had colluded to "manipulate the case" solely to obtain compensation from the insurance company. 

Justice Geetha K.B. upheld an MACT order dismissing a compensation claim and directed the state police authorities to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate criminal collusion between the parties.

"In the present case, even though respondent No.3 himself came forward to give evidence and complainant was examined as R.W.3 and not as the claimant's witness shows that there is clear collusion in between claimant, respondent Nos.1, 3 and complainant to manipulate the case"

The court found that there were proper reasons to disbelieve the case of the claimant.

1. Complaint is lodged stating the name and address of the claimant and that he was the rider of the motorcycle, by enquiring claimant, because the complainant did not know the claimant before lodging the complaint.

2. About 1 month afterwards, the complainant gave further statement before the Investigating Officer that he came to know that the claimant was only pillion rider because he met the claimant at the Vivekananda Hospital; but as on the alleged date of R.W.3 (complainant) meeting claimant in the hospital, claimant was not at all admitted in said hospital. -

3. R.W.2 i.e., the alleged rider came into the picture only about 1 month after the accident. Till then the claimant was the suspected rider of the motorcycle. IV. It is a fact that the claimant did not possess driving licence to ride the motorcycle, whereas respondent No.3  possessed one. Respondent No.3 is from the same village of claimant.

4. The cross-examination of the claimant establishes that his affidavit evidence does not inspire confidence that he became the pillion rider of the motorcycle in the midnight and he was not the rider. 

5. R.W.2 left the claimant in the middle of the road and went to his village in a lorry which is also strange behaviour and not acceptable.

"For the above reasons, this Court does not believe the statement of claimant that he was only pillion rider. On the other hand, the facts established before the Tribunal are that the claimant, in collusion with his own father (respondent No.1) and respondent No.3-the person of his village and R.W.3, the complainant manipulated the case as if he is pillion rider, even though he was the rider of the motorcycle. Thus, apparently a fraud has been committed by the claimant in collusion with respondent Nos.1, 3 and R.W.3 solely to obtain compensation from respondent No.2-insurance Company. Thus, this Court holds that the appeal is to be dismissed by imposing heavy costs and a direction is to be issued to the State Police Authorities to investigate the matter in an appropriate manner". 

The case arose from a road accident that took place in September 2010. The person, who witnessed the accident, stated in his initial complaint to the police that the claimant— who did not possess a driving license at the time— was riding the motorcycle negligently and rashly, leading to the bike turning turtle and the claimant sustaining injuries. However, when the chargesheet was filed, it mentioned the third respondent as the rider and the claimant as the pillion rider at the time of the accident.

The claimant then filed a petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking compensation of Rs 15,00,000, arguing that he, as a pillion rider, suffered injuries due to rash driving of the third respondent. The insurance company opposed the petition, contending that as the claimant was riding the motorcycle without a valid driving license. the third respondent was falsely implicated a month later to secure compensation. The claim was rejected by MACT, which found that the claimant failed to prove he was riding pillion.

The High Court, in the present case, observed that though the claimant need not prove his case “beyond reasonable doubt”, but there must not be any suspicion arising from the claims made by the claimant.

“Even though in the case of present nature, claimant has to establish the factum of accident only with the principle of preponderance of probability and not the strict proof of beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. However, even though the claimant is not supposed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt, there shall not be any suspicion about the case of the claimant as arose in the present case,” the Court said.

The Court took into account several contradictions and suspicious circumstances in the case. The Court noted that the complainant— a stranger to the claimant— initially named the claimant as the rider, however, after a month, he changed his statement before the Investigating Officer stating that he later learned about the claimant being the pillion rider when he met him in the hospital. However, the records showed that the claimant was not admitted to the hospital on that date, the Court observed.

Further, the Court took into consideration the fact that the claimant did not possess a driving license at the time of the accident, whereas the third respondent did.

Dismissing the appeal the Court imposed costs of Rs 10,000. 

Case: GIRIDHAR NEELAKANT PAI VS NEELAKANT NARAYAN PAI & OTHERS

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101014 OF 2017 (MV-I)

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Full View

Tags: