The Branch Manager vs Dhanpati Kisku
2025 Latest Caselaw 2441 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

The Branch Manager vs Dhanpati Kisku on 6 February, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               M. A. No. 314 of 2015
         The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai
         through its Branch Manager, Sri Pankaj Singh, S/o Sri Sant Kumar Singh,
         R/o J.D. Corporate, Hindpiri, Ranchi.
                                                                 .... .. ... Appellant(s)
                               Versus
         1.Dhanpati Kisku, W/o Late Nikodem Marandi @ Nakodem Marandi @
         Nikunj Marandi.
         2.Luis Murmu, W/o Late Stephen Marandi,
         Both resides of Village- Chirapathar, P.O. & P.S. Gopikandar, District-
         Dumka and permanent R/o Village - Simaldahi, P.O. and P.S. Maheshpur,
         District- Pakur.
         3.Maheshwar Sah, S/o Jyotin Sahan, R/o Village Sahargram, P.O. and
         P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur, Jharkhand.
                                                        .. ... ...Respondent(s)
                     ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

        For the Appellant (s)        :     Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
        For the Resp.(s)               :   Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate
                     ......

15/ 06.02.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The instant Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the impugned Award dated 18.03.2015 passed by learned Principal District Judge- cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur, in MACT Case No.94 of 2013, whereby and whereunder compensation of Rs.35,39,152/- along with simple interest @ 7% per annum under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.

2. The main ground of appeal is that there has been manipulation in filing of the claim application in which fake claims have been raised on the basis of factually incorrect statements.

3. It is argued that when the impugned Award/judgment is read as a whole, a conspiracy angle will emerge showing connivance of the claimants and lawyers including the investigating agency for making false and fraudulent claims.

4. As per the case of the claimants, the incident took place when the deceased was travelling on his Motorcycle and the same was hit by one Truck bearing Registration No.JH18B 0170 which was being driven at the relevant time by one Driver, Manoj Kumar Das and the vehicle, in question was under the Insurance cover of appellant- Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited.

5. It is argued by learned counsel on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company that initially FIR (Ext.1) was registered after the accident being Dumka (M) P.S. Case No.5 of 2012 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC on 06.01.2012 against the driver of an unknown truck on the basis of

fardbeyan of one Dhanpati Kisku, the wife of the deceased. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet (Ext.2) against the said Driver, Manoj Kumar Das for causing death by rash and negligent driving, without referring the number of truck which was being driven by him.

6. Claimant has been examined as AW.1 (Dhanpati Kisku) and she has deposed that at the time of accident, she was going along with her husband and a Dumpher bearing Registration No.JH18B 0170 being driven rashly and negligently caused the accident. It is further argued that in the FIR, this witness has not named the vehicle number nor the name of the vehicle or its registration number, as such the FIR was lodged against unknown truck.

7. Therefore, it is not clear as to how she came to know about this vehicle itself being responsible for causing accident. In her cross-examination, this witness has wrongly stated in the FIR that she had disclosed the registration number of the offending vehicle. A.W.2 (Md. Salimuddin @ Pappu) has claimed himself to be the direct eye-witness of the accident and stated that accident was caused by the Dumpher bearing Registration No.JH18B 0170 and he has stated in his cross-examination that his statement was not recorded by the Police, but his name does not figure as a witness in the chargesheet (Ext-2).

8. The main contention raised at Bar on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company is that a hit and run case has been converted into a claim against the vehicle bearing Registration No.JH18B 0170, but the same was without any credible evidence of its involvement in the accident.

9. It is argued that in the District of Pakur, there is trend of filing such fake cases which will be evident from the very fact that the driver, Manoj Kumar Dash has been cited as driving the offending vehicle in at least three other cases MACT Claim Case No.88/13, MACT Case No.71/12 and MACT Case No.53/ 14.

10. Learned counsel for the claimant(s) has defended the impugned judgment of Award. It is argued that onus was upon the Insurance Company to bring into evidence that the deposition of any claimant witness(es) that the vehicle involved in the accident was not the said vehicle bearing Registration No.JH18B 0170. This argument is being raised for the first time before the appellate court and was not raised before the learned Trial Court.

11. It is argued that the owner in this case has appeared and admitted the involvement of the Truck in the accident although no charge-sheet has been submitted against the said truck.

12. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and considering the materials on record, it is evident that neither the number of the offending truck was mentioned in the FIR, nor did it could be found during investigation by the police and charge-sheet has been filed without referring to the vehicle which was involved in the accident. It is strange that without any finding of the details of the offending vehicle charge sheet has been submitted against one Manoj Kumar Das said to be driving the offending vehicle. As per the chargesheet the accident was caused by an unknown truck regarding which Station Diary entry no.120/12 was made.

13. It is true that in motor accident claim cases provisions of procedural law or evidence Act does not rigidly apply. This does not mean that Tribunals can absolutely shut its eyes to egregious gaps on the case of claimants raising doubt over the liability of the owner to pay the compensation amount.

14. In the present case the very documentary evidence of FIR and charge-sheet raises serious doubt about the involvement of vehicle No.JH18B 0170 to be involved in the accident. The evidence of the claimant (AW-1) regarding it to be involved in the accident cannot be accepted as in her fardbeyan she had herself stated that an unknown truck had caused the accident. The falsity of the AW-2 is also exposed as he had stated that his statement was recorded by police, but his name does not figure in the charge-sheet as witness.

15. All these facts lends credence to the appellants contention that only to saddle liability on the Insurance Company, under a design Vehicle No.JH18B 0170 in the claim case has been stated to be involved in the accident. Since it was under the insurance cover, the owner of the vehicle did not stand to lose anything by admitting that it was involved in the accident.

16. Learned Tribunal failed to consider the vital infirmities in the claimant's case and passed order mechanically. Evidence on record suggests that a hit and run case, has been the colour of a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act, by interpolating vehicle No.JH18B 0170 at the time of filing of claim application as it was duly insured with the Insurance Company.

In case of fraud Tribunal need to keep in mind the observation of the Apex Court in Kusha Duruka Vs State of Orissa 2024 SCC OnLine SC 56

About three decades ago, this Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma1 was faced with a situation where an attempt was made to deceive the Court and interfere with the administration of justice. The litigant was held to be guilty of contempt of court. It was a case in which husband had filed fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings. Finding him guilty of contempt of court, he was sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment by this Court. This Court observed as under:

"1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.

2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.

***

14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated documents is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt."

Under the circumstance, the impugned Order is set aside and the instant appeal is allowed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/