Fake MACT Claim By Lawyers- Supreme Court Suggests Ministry Of Road Transport To Extend Operation of 'VAHAN' Portal To Tackle The Issue

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K.M. Nataraj to assist the court in tackling the issue of fake claim petitions filed under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Workmen Compensation Act. The Apex Court suggested Mr. Nataraj to seek information from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, if the already existing VAHAN portal can be extended to solve the pan India problem regarding fake claims. On brief perusal of some of the suggestions put forth by Senior Advocate, Mr. Atul Nanda, appearing on behalf of the insurance company, a Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna asked Mr. Nataraj to get instructions from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, if a centralised mechanism can be developed so that all the information crucial to a claim can be on the same portal. The Bench was hearing the matter pertaining to the fake claim petitions filed by advocates in Uttar Pradesh under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Workmen Compensation Act. A S.I.T was constituted by the High Court of Allahabad to, inter alia, investigate these matters. On the last date of hearing, the Apex Court displeased with the inaction of the Bar Council of U.P. in adopting measures against the erring advocates directed the presence of the President and Secretary of the U.P. Bar Council. At the outset, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of U.P. informed the Court that the President and Secretary were present in compliance with its earlier order. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner apprised the Court that he had filed the petition against the formation of the SIT, since it had dismissed his client's genuine claim. "The Petitioner has filed this petition against the formation of SIT. SIT was formed in 2015. The purpose of SIT was to enquire the court records, advocate's files etc.. Kindly see the order on the basis of which SIT was formed…Till the time of SIT, there was no FIR against advocates, but... information that some false cases were there is UP…This formation of SIT, on the basis of which my claim has been dismissed…My son has died..I have no other remedy." Pointing out at the magnitude of the issue at hand, the Court clarified that it is not dealing with individual cases. In case of any adverse order against genuine claims, the Court asked the Petitioner to challenge the same, independently. "We are not considering individual cases…If there is an adverse order, file an appeal. You have seen the larger issue, what is happening in the Court. Have you seen the data that has come about. Let's assume in one case a wrong order has been passed, you have to challenge the order. We cannot set aside the constitution of SIT." The Counsel humbly submitted, "I have some questions before the Hon'ble Court. I have challenged the formation of SIT." The Court assured the Counsel for the Petitioner that it would go through the issues highlighted by him and consider them. Thereafter, the Counsel appearing on behalf of SIT informed the Court that, "The list of advocates and accused were filed two days ago." Dissatisfied with the lack of information in the list provided by SIT, the Bench stated - "List of cases and chargesheet also filed…On which dates chargesheets have been filed, before which court chargesheet had been filed nothing has been given. Suppose we want to issue some direction…We can atleast direct Ld. Magistrate to frame charges..' The Counsel for SIT assured the Court that he would file a detailed document. "I will place it on record…These charge sheets have been filed in the last two months." Justice Khanna enquired, "Has sanction under 193 etc. has been obtained?" The Counsel for SIT submitted, "Till today in none of the cases it was required." The Bench further enquired, "In none of these cases FIR was registered? These are motor accident claims, there would be corresponding FIRs, where in those cases chargesheet filed?" The Counsel for SIT informed the Court that it was not aware of the other cases, but in the concerned 1372 cases, out of 92 cases in 36 cases chargesheet have been filed. "I am not aware of the other cases but in 92 cases with respect to 1372 cases. Out of 92 cases in 36 cases chargesheet has been filed." As the Counsel for SIT mentioned in the passing that no police officer in UP was found to be involved in these cases of fake claims, the Bench asked him: "When you say no police officer in UP is involved, there has to be first some investigation… SIT of UP?" The Counsel for SIT responded that, the finding against the police officers in U.P. was of negligence, but not of involvement in the fake claims. "Yes, your lordship. Negligence was found, involvement in those fake cases not found. Some statements were not taken of the vehicle owners. That was the negligence…Disciplinary proceedings...

Fake MACT Claim By Lawyers- Supreme Court Suggests Ministry Of Road Transport To Extend Operation of 'VAHAN' Portal To Tackle The Issue

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags