Allahabad High Court
Go Digit General Insurance ... vs Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ... on 10 January, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
1. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33942 of 2022
Petitioner :- Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd
Respondent :- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Singh
2. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34117 of 2022
Petitioner :- Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd
Respondent :- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Siddharth Nagar And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. As agreed by learned counsel for parties, both these writ petitions are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Petitioner before this Court is the Insurance Company and respondent in claim petitions filed before Tribunal.
3. Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on Supreme Court's order dated 16.11.2021 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1110 of 2017 (Safiq Ahmad vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. And others) wherein Court has taken cognizance on status report submitted by SIT with regard to pending investigation of cases. Learned counsel further submits that an application was moved by petitioner on 07.09.2022 before Additional Director General (Special Investigation Cell), Lucknow to comply the order passed by Supreme Court in Safiq Ahmad (supra) and conduct investigation in the present case. He, however, has no instruction about present status of investigation. Learned counsel further submits that an application to adjourn claim petition till investigation is completed by SIT was wrongly rejected by impugned order. Learned counsel further placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 12922 of 2022 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and others), decided on 06.05.2022 and relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:
"On the other hand, even if the doubt expressed by the petitioner is found to be incorrect, no prejudice would be caused to any party as the time consumed in production of such a document and leading of such evidence would only lead to further loss to the petitioner who may suffer interest liability for that much longer."
xxx
"Examined in that light, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The Tribunal has plainly refused to examine the allegation of fraud made by the petitioner. Unless the Tribunal had summoned the record of the criminal case and seen for itself, the status of the seizure memo dated 09.3.2017 and compared the same with the other seizure memo dated 31.3.2018, it could not have reached the conclusion that the petitioner was only delaying the proceedings. In fact, in such fact allegations, the question of delay would become secondary as no fraudulent claim may be allowed to be processed becaue screening of fraud may lead to some delay.
In the present case, sufficient material had been produced to establish, on prima facie basis, existence of fraud in describing the offending vehicle. Even if the medico legal report is to be ignored, the F.I.R. allegations could not be blunted. They clearly narrate that the offending vehicle had been seized by the police and detained at the police station. Again, on prima facie basis, it does merit acceptance that such occurrence had taken place wherein the offending motor vehicle/tempo not bearing registration plate and that was green in colour on its sides with a yellow top had been seized at the time of occurrence and detained at the police station.
The above narration made in the F.I.R. does lead to a presumption that a seizure memo would have been prepared by the police at the time of occurrence with respect to the offending vehicle. That presumption could not be brushed aside merely because of the existence of the other seizure memo dated 31.3.2017. The Tribunal has refused to exercise that power to ascertain the doubt as would allow it to determine if the claim made was fraudulent (insofar as the offending vehicle is concerned) or not."
4. It is not in dispute that claim petitions filed by claimants are presently at the stage of final argument and any attempt on behalf of petitioner, i.e., Insurance Company, to delay the disposal of claim petitions will adversely affect the claimants, who have knocked the door of justice and waiting for justice for last two years.
5. Supreme Court has passed order in Safiq Ahmad (supra) on 16.11.2021, however, petitioner has moved application after ten months without any explanation on delay except mentioning that after inquiry they got knowledge about order in Safiq Ahmad (supra) as well as that a fraud was played by claimants, without any document annexing alongwith application.
6. Heavy reliance has been placed on judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company (supra), however, the same will not help petitioner as in the present case petitioner wants to take advantage of an order passed by Supreme Court without any basis or relevant documents and trying to create a doubt or suspicion on the claim of claimants. There is no ground to keep pending the claim petition till conclusion of investigation by SIT, specifically when there is nothing on record, whether any investigation is pending or not.
7. In these circumstances, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in impugned order and petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of an order passed by Supreme Court without any basis and to delay the proceedings which may adversely affect right of claimants.
8. Both writ petitions lack merit and are accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.1.2023
AK
