Karnataka High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs G.N. Gopalagowda And Anr. on 5 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006ACJ2771, 2005 A I H C 4161, (2007) 2 ACC 245 (2006) 4 ACJ 2771, (2006) 4 ACJ 2771
Author: K. Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K. Sreedhar Rao
JUDGMENT K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. The petitioner in M.V.C. No. 1903 of 1997, a police constable sustained personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The F.I.R., Exh. R1, is lodged by one Suryanarayana Rao, P.C. No. 6806 of Malleshwaram Police Station. The first informant is a witness to the incident. The contents of F.I.R. discloses that the petitioner was riding a scooter bearing No. KA 02-E 1779 in a rash and negligent manner on the Sampige Road hit against a tree, as a result he fell down and sustained injuries. The F.I.R., Exh. R1, names the petitioner as accused of committing the offence of rash and negligent driving. Very strangely a final report under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed indicting one Laxminarayana, driver of an auto bearing No. KA-04 6173 as accused to have caused the accident by dashing against the petitioner. The driver of the auto has appeared before the criminal court and admitted guilt and paid a fine of Rs. 1,250. The auto is insured with the appellant. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 56,320 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of the petition till payment payable by the insurer appellant.
2. The appellant insurer had denied the occurrence of the accident before the Tribunal and contended that the prosecution of criminal case against the auto driver is fabricated and concoction of a false case in order to seek compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner.
3. The Claims Tribunal has rejected the theory of fraud and concoction pleaded by the insurer and upholds the case of the petitioner regarding the manner of accident. The award is granted against the insurer for payment of compensation. The insurer is in appeal.
4. The F.I.R., Exh. R1, is marked which is a part of the charge-sheet. The petitioner for the reasons best known to him has not produced the F.I.R. along with the charge-sheet material tendered as documentary evidence in his favour. The first informant in the F.I.R. is cited as CW 1 in the charge-sheet marked at Exh. P1. The narration of the accident as per Exh. R1 discloses that there was no involvement of the auto in causing the accident. Petitioner on account of his negligence sustained personal injuries. The simulated exercise of filing the charge-sheet against the driver of the auto and conviction of the auto driver on the plea of his guilt before the criminal court appears to be a thorough conspiracy preplanned to fabricate a false prosecution and make believe theory. The Tribunal has gravely erred in not discerning the evident conspiracy of fraud and fabrication of a false case against the auto driver with unholy motives.
5. Petitioner is a police constable. The charge-sheet does not explain the divergent and contra material in the F.I.R., Exh. R1 to sustain the charge-sheet against the auto driver. Evidently, it appears to be a case of fraud on the court and misuse of official position by the petitioner with the connivance of investigating officer in concocting a false case to make unlawful gain and to cause unlawful loss to the public money.
6. The material on record abundantly discloses that the criminal prosecution launched against the auto driver is only a make believe version. The contents of F.I.R. strongly corroborate the version of the insurer that the auto was not involved in the accident. The contra finding of the Claims Tribunal in that regard is palpably perverse, the fastening of the liability on the insurer is bad in law. The award made against the insurer is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
7. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Commissioner of Police to make an inquiry into the probity of investigation conducting Cr. No. 2005 of 1997 on the file of Malleshwaram Police Station and to take necessary action against the culprits.
8. The amount in deposit to be refunded to the appellant.