Delhi District Court
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh vs Subhash Chand (Owner) on 13 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DR. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.1067/2018
CNR No. DLCT010169852018
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh
S/o Late Aganu,
R/o Village Sheesha Garhi, Post Bhadanwara,
District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Subhash Chand (Owner)
S/o Sh. Munilal,
R/o H. No. A42, Gali No.1, Saraswati Kunj,
Chipyana Khurd Tigri Noida,
District Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Umesh Sharma (Driver)
S/o Sh. Ramjilal Sharma,
R/o A83/2, Saraswati Kunj,
Chipyana Khurd Tigri Noida,
District Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
3. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., (Insurance)
1001, LGF, Naivala Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005.
......Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition: 15.12.2018
Judgment Reserved on: 26.03.2022
Date of Judgment: 13.04.2022
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018
Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 1 of 38
JUDGMENT:
(1) The present Claim Petition has been preferred under Sections 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 claiming a compensation of Rs.51,00,000/ (Rupees Fifty One Lacs Only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization in respect of grievous injuries sustained by the injured Vrijo @ Vijay Singh in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 13.08.2017 at about 4:45 PM near Hanuman Temple, Bisrakh District Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) The Facts in Brief as emerged from the claim petition are that on 13.08.2017 the Vrijo @ Vijay Singh along with daughter Payal (since deceased) were going to Ghaziabad from Surajpur Greater Noida by an Auto bearing registration No. UP16DT6420. The driver of the said Auto was driving the same in a high speed and negligently and at about 4:45 PM, when the Auto reached on Surajpur Ghaziabad Road, Near Hanuman Temple, Bisrakh the Auto dashed with electric light pole due to rash and negligence of the driver in which Vrijo @ Vijay Singh and her daughter Kumari Payal sustained multiple grievous injuries. After the accident, Vrijo @ Vijay Singh and Kumari Payal were got admitted in Government Hospital Noida from where after first aid treatment, they were referred to Guru Teg Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 2 of 38 Bahadur Hospital Delhi. It is pleaded that the right leg of Vrijo @ Vijay Singh was crushed in the accident and was therefore, amputated in the hospital where he remained admitted w.e.f. 13.08.2017 till 05.10.2017. It is pleaded that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ incurred in the treatment of Vrijo @ Vijay Singh and he became permanently disabled. It is further pleaded that on account of the injuries Kumari Payal (aged about 11 years) expired at GTB Hospital on 21.09.2017.
It is further pleaded that on the date of accident, Vrijo @ Vijay Singh was aged 32 years having good health and was working as Mattress Mechanic in M/s. Sapna Enterprises, Plot No. 1041, 142, Ecotech 1 st Greater Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh on a salary of Rs.18,000/ per month. According to the petitioner, an FIR bearing No. 702/2017 dated 07.11.2017 was registered at Police Station Bisrak, Distt. Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. against the driver of the offending vehicle in respect of the accident in question. (3) The respondent no.1 Subhash Chand has filed his written statement wherein preliminary objections have been raised that the present petition filed by the petitioner is vague, false, frivolous and misuse of law as the same is based on concealment of material facts. It is also pleaded that the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this court and has concealed the material facts as the petitioner had entered into settlement with the respondent no.1 vide settlement dated 18.08.2017 according to which it has been settled that the party shall not initiate any legal proceedings against any Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 3 of 38 party related in the present matter and the first party has already paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ to the second party i.e. the petitioner. It is further pleaded that Sh. Ramji Lal Sharma S/o Late Sh. Budhdev Sharma R/o A83, Gali No.2, Saraswati Kunj, Chipyana Khurd Tigri Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh is the actual owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP16DT6420 whereas the offending vehicle was got registered in the name of respondent no.1 since he was/is having badge in his name as such the permit of the vehicle is to be given in the name of the respondent no.1 wherein the offending vehicle is completely under ownership and control of the said Sh. Ramji Lal Sharma who himself has undertaken all the responsibilities including accident in respect of the said vehicle. It is also pleaded that the present petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law, as no cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner to file the present petition qua the respondent no.1, as no accident took place by the respondent no.1 therein. It is further pleaded that the present claim is not maintainable in the eye of law since the present petition is based on suppressed facts and statement of facts and circumstances which do not disclose any cause of action against the respondent, therefore, the present claim petition is liable to be dismissed. It is pleaded that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exaggerated and is without any basis of offending vehicle insured with respondent no.3 and respondent no.1 having valid driving license at the time of accident.
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 4 of 38 (4) In so far as the respondent no.2 Umesh Sharma is concerned, he has not filed any written statement despite the fact that he was duly served and was represented by Sh. Pradeep Kumar Advocate. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner had closed his evidence on 10.01.2020 and on the same day the respondent no.2 Umesh Sharma also closed his evidence. When the case was listed for evidence of respondent no.1 and 3, on 23.01.2020 an application under Section 151 CPC was filed by the respondent no.2 seeking permission to file his written statement and for condonation of delay in filing the written statement, which application was dismissed by this Court/ Tribunal vide order dated 23.01.2020. (5) The Respondent no.3 Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited has also filed its reply/ written statement wherein preliminary objection has been raised that in case, it is found that the driving license of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle or permit is either fake or not effective at the time of the said accident, then the respondent no.3 shall take over the defense of respondent no.1 without prejudice to the provisions of Section 149 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act. It is further pleaded that if at any stage of the proceedings, the respondent no.1 and 2 have failed to contest the claim on merits, or there is some collusion between the claimant and respondent no.1 then the respondent no.3 shall take over the defense of the respondent no.1, without the prejudice to the provisions of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On merits, the Insurance Company has denied all the Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 5 of 38 averments made by the petitioner in the claim petition.
ISSUES SETTLED:
(6) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 04.11.2019, following issues were settled by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court:
i. Whether the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the road accident which occurred on 13.08.2017 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Bisrakh, Uttar Pradesh? ii. Whether the vehicle bearing registration no. UP16DT6420 driven by Umesh Sharma was involved in the aforesaid accident?
iii. If so, whether the said accident was caused due to sole and rash negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. UP16DT6420?
iv. If the finding on issue no.1, 2 and 3 above in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled and from whom?
v. Relief. (7) Further, keeping in view the fact that the accident had taken
place at Bisrakh, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and the petitioner as well as the respondents no.1 and 2 are residents of Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, vide order dated 22.02.2020 this Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 6 of 38 Court/ Tribunal has settled an Additional Issue No. 1A as under:
Whether this Court has the Territorial Jurisdiction to try the present petition?
EVIDENCE:
(8) In order to prove his case the petitioner Vrijo @ Vijay Singh has examined himself as PW1. In so far as the respondent no.2 Umesh Sharma is concerned, he has closed his evidence on 10.01.2020 whereas the respondents no.1 and 3 have not led any evidence.
(9) For the sake of convenience, the testimony of the petitioner Vrijo @ Vijay Singh is put in a tabulated form as under:
S. Witness Deposition
No.
Petitioner's Witness:
1. Sh. Vrijo @ Vijay PW1 Sh. Vrijo @ Vijay Singh is the petitioner/ injured
Singh (PW1) in the present case who in his examinationinchief by
way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A has corroborated what he has earlier stated in the Claim Petition. He has placed his reliance upon the following documents:
1. Photocopy of his Aadhar Card which is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Original permanent disability certificate and original medical reports which are Ex.PW1/2 (Colly).
3. Certified copies of FIR, Map, injury report, charge sheet and original wage certificate are Ex.PW1/3 (Colly).
In his cross examination, by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1, the witness has deposed as under: Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 7 of 38 ➢ That the accident had taken place at about 4:45 PM.
➢ That he boarded the Auto Rickshaw from Kasba Surajpur, Uttar Pradesh and was going to Ghaziabad.
➢ That there were three adult passengers and two minor children besides driver.
➢ That no photograph was clicked by the police in his presence.
➢ That all the passengers including the driver had received injury in the said accident.
➢ That it is wrong that he did not become seriously injured in the said accident which took place on 13.08.2017.
➢ That it is wrong that Rs.3,00,000/ were not incurred in his treatment and that is why he has not placed on record any document regarding the expenditure.
➢ That at the time of the accident, he was traveling in Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No. UP 16DT6420 along with his daughter Payal and the said Auto Rickshaw was running at the speed of 80 KM per hour.
➢ That he had told the auto rickshaw driver to slow down the speed of the same but he ignored the same.
➢ That he was conscious after the accident.
➢ That the other passengers who was traveling with him was Mr. Kishan called the PCR after the accident.
➢ That police reached at the spot at about 10 to 15 minutes.
➢ That PCR called the CAT Ambulance and took him to the Govt. Hospital of Sector30, Noida where his MLC was prepared and after preliminary treatment, he was referred to GTB Hospital where he was admitted and his further treatment was going on.
➢ That he has not filed any document regarding his treatment expenses.
➢ That police had recorded his statement after two and a half month of the accident.
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 8 of 38 ➢ That thereafter, police never met him again after recording his statement.
➢ That it is wrong that the accident had not taken place due to his negligence.
➢ That he has not placed any document to show that he had spent Rs.3,00,000/ in his treatment.
➢ That it is wrong that he has not received any kind of disability due to the said accident.
➢ That it is wrong that the wages certificate filed by him is not false and fabricated.
➢ That he has not placed any document on record to show that he is permanent resident of Delhi. In so far as the respondents are concerned, they have not led any evidence. The respondent no.2 Umesh Sharma has closed his evidence vide his statement dated 10.01.2020 whereas the respondents no.1 and 3 have not led their evidence.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(10) I have heard the arguments advanced before me and also considered the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties.
My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue No. 1A: Whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try the present petition?
(11) Onus of proving this issue was upon the petitioner. Perusal of the record shows that the accident in the present case had taken place on 13.08.2017 near Hanuman Temple, Bisrakh, Distt.
Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner is a resident of Village Sheesha Garhi, Post Bhadanwara, Distt. Mathura, Uttar Pradesh; the respondent no.1 Subhash Chand (owner of the Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 9 of 38 offending vehicle) and the respondent no.2 Umesh Sharma (driver of the offending vehicle) is a resident of Saraswati Kunj, Chipyana Khurd Tigri Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. It was in this background that the above issue relating to territorial jurisdiction was settled by this Court/ Tribunal on 24.02.2020. (12) I may note that the present claim petition has been filed before this Court/ Tribunal claiming that the office of the Insurance Company is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court/ Tribunal. I have gone through the copy of Insurance Policy placed on record and it is evident that the same has been issued from 1001, LGF Naiwala, Arya Samaj Road, Naiwala Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Therefore, by applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2016 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.27243 of 2015 decided on 05.01.2016, I hold that this Court/ Tribunal has the jurisdiction to try the present claim petition.
(13) Issue is accordingly disposed off. Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in
the road accident which occurred on 13.08.2017 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Bisrakh, Uttar Pradesh?
Issue No.2: Whether the vehicle bearing registration no. UP 16DT6420 driven by Umesh Sharma was involved in the aforesaid accident?
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 10 of 38 Issue No.3: If so, whether the said accident was caused due to sole and rash negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. UP16DT6420?
Issue No.4: If the finding on issue no.1, 2 and 3 above in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled and from whom?
(14) All the four issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience involving common discussion.
(15) The case of the petitioner Vrijo @ Vijay Singh is that on 13.08.2017 he along with his daughter Payal (since deceased) were going to Ghaziabad from Surajpur Greater Noida by an Auto bearing registration No. UP16DT6420 and at about 4:45 PM, when the Auto reached on Surajpur Ghaziabad Road, Near Hanuman Temple, Bisrakh the Auto which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed with electric light pole as a result of which Vrijo @ Vijay Singh and her daughter Kumari Payal sustained multiple grievous injuries. After the accident, Vrijo @ Vijay Singh and Kumari Payal were got admitted in Government Hospital Noida from where after first aid treatment, they were referred to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital Delhi. The petitioner Vrijo @ Vijay Singh suffered amputation of right leg whereas Kumari Payal sustained fatal injuries. (16) On the other hand the case of the respondent no.1 Subhash Chand (Owner of the alleged offending vehicle) is that the petitioner had entered into settlement with the respondent no.1 Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 11 of 38 vide settlement dated 18.08.2017 according to which it has been settled that the petitioner shall not initiate any legal proceedings against any party related in the present matter and the respondent no.1 Subhash Chand has already paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ to the petitioner. According to the respondent no.1, Sh. Ramji Lal Sharma S/o Late Sh. Budhdev Sharma R/o A83, Gali No.2, Saraswati Kunj, Chipyana Khurd Tigri Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh is the actual owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP16DT6420 whereas the offending vehicle was got registered in the name of respondent no.1 since he was/is having badge in his name as such the permit of the vehicle is to be given in the name of the respondent no.1 wherein the offending vehicle is completely under ownership and control of the said Sh. Ramji Lal Sharma who himself has undertaken all the responsibilities including accident in respect of the said vehicle.
(17) In so far as the respondent no.2 Umesh Sharma (Driver of the alleged offending vehicle) is concerned, he has not filed any written statement.
(18) I have considered the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels and have gone through the records of the case. (19) I may observe that vide order dated 01.02.2022 the petitioner was directed to explain why this claim petition be not put in the doubtful/ suspicious category in terms of the observations dated 16.09.2021 & 16.12.2021 made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 12 of 38 of Shafiq Ahmed Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1110 of 2017. The relevant portion of the order dated 01.02.2022 is reproduced as under:
".... The present claim petition was filed on 15.12.2018 in respect of an accident which took place on 13.08.2017 near Hanuman Temple, Bisrakh, Distt. Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners are residents of Village Sheesha Garhi, Post Bhadanwara, Distt. Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. The respondent no.1 Subhash Chand and respondent no.2 Umesh Sharma are both residents of District Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
Of late, it has been noticed that some Advocates have started filing petitions of outstation matters and that too in bulk before different courts by stretching and expanding the jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claim Tribunals on the pretext that the office of the insurance company is situated within the jurisdiction of the court. In a similar practice, in Uttar Pradesh a large number of Advocates were found involved in filing of fake claims pleas and in this regard cognizance was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad against such malpractices and an SIT was constituted to investigate the fraud and in this regard the case of Shafiq Ahmed Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1110 of 2017, CC No. 23628 of 2016 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07.10.2015 in Crime No. 49 of 2015 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Jurisdiction of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, is relevant. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a note of the Status Report filed by the SIT in its order dated 16.12.2021 according to which out of total 1376 cases of suspicious claims received by the SIT, after completing enquiry of 247 cases of suspicious claims till date, total 198 accused persons have been primafacie found guilty of cognizable offence and accordingly total 92 criminal cases have been registered in various districts. In fact that total 92 criminal cases in various districts have been registered till date, of which, 28 advocates have been named as accused persons in 55 cases and Charge Sheets against 11 advocates in 25 cases have been forwarded to the concerned trial Court till date.
In the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed a detailed order dated 05.01.2017 reference of which was also made Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 13 of 38 in the order dated 16.09.2021 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court expressed its serious concerns of the alarming situation in which fake and fabricated claims may be filed under Motor Vehicles Act in all States/ Union Territories pursuant to which directions were issued and the Registrars of all the High Courts were directed to ascertain from the Motor Accident Claim Tribunals such doubtful cases which primafacie may require investigation and to prevent filing of such fabricated cases. The relevant portion of the same is quoted as under:
"...... From the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, it was noticed that 64 fake claim cases were pending in various Districts in the State of U.P. It was also found and noticed that 29 fake claim cases were decided in which compensation of Rs. 1.23 Crores has been paid and claims for over Rs. 6 Crores are still pending. This Court noted that the situation is really alarming and similar scenario cannot be ruled out elsewhere in other States/Union Territories also. Therefore, this Court directed to issue notice to all the States/Union Territories and Insurance Companies as to what steps can be taken to rule out the filing of the fake cases and what remedial measures can be taken. This Court also directed to issue notice to all the High Courts through Registrars to ascertain from MACTs such doubtful cases which prima facie may require investigation and to prevent filing of such fabricated cases....".
In the light of the observations & directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the present case wherein an attempt has been made to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by expanding the same by application of the principles laid down in the case of Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2016 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.27243 of 2015 decided on 05.01.2016. In the present case, despite the accident having taken place at Bisrakh, Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and the parties particularly the petitioners are residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court, this Tribunal will have no option but to place this claim petition in doubtful/ suspicious category to rule out any foulplay. The principle of convenience of victims, if applied, primafacie does not appear to be compatible with the Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 14 of 38 facts of the present case. [Reference in this regard is made to the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 05.01.2017, 16.09.2021 & 16.12.2021 in the case of Shafiq Ahmed Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra)].....".
(20) It is necessary to mention here that in the case of Shafiq Ahmed Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) vide order dated 16.12.2021 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with large number of claim petitions involving fraud and fake claims, has taken a serious note of the malpractices and the modusoperandi in claim petitions where large scale siphoning of the insurance amount is involved while instituting fake compensation petitions, which observations I quote as under:
"..... 7. We have also heard at length Shri Atul Nanda, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Vishnu Mehra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the two insurance companies and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh/SIT on the modus operandi of the advocates for filing fake cases under Motor Vehicles Act and Workmen Compensation Act. Separate notes have been filed pointing out the modus operandi in instituting the fake compensation petitions. Some of the modus operandi adopted are as under:
i) Nonroad accident injurydeath converted into road accident claims;
ii) fraudulent implantation of vehicle;
iii) false implantation of driver;
iv) claimant implantation;
v) multiple claims at various for a at different territorial
locations for compensation out of injury/ death caused arising out of the same accident. Often the claim applications are filed both before various MACT Tribunals as well as the authorities under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923;
vi) fake/fabricated insurance policies; and
vii) fake/ fabricated income documents/ medical documents for exaggerated compensation.
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 15 of 38 7.1 Investigating Officer of SIT has also filed a short note on modus operandi in instituting fake compensation petitions, which are based on rich experience during investigation/ enquiry of the Criminal Cases/ FIRs/ Complaints, which are as under:
1. CASES OF HIT AND RUN Such road accidents which are occurred from unknown vehicles, alleged eyewitnesses are prepared therein, on the basis of their affidavit/statements, facts are brought in the light showing accident committed by some other insured vehicle and petition is instituted against owner/driver/insurance company of the aforementioned vehicle.
In the cases of such road accident which have been committed by unknown vehicles, for the purpose of institution of the compensation petitions, in a well designed planning, documents related to vehicle/driver are obtained from some advocates and documents of such vehicles/driver used in some other compensation petitions/cases are used in institution of false petitions.
Such road accidents which are occurred from some unknown vehicles, in that accidents are shown to have been committed by such vehicles which are old and their vehicle owners remain first registered owners. Advocates purchase such aforementioned vehicles as old vehicles, they do not get such vehicles registered in their own names whereas the actual/registered owners of those vehicles have already died. Despite of death of original owner, fake General Power of Attorneys are executed/prepared in the names of such deceased vehicle owners through their companions advocates. Aforementioned vehicles are shown in such road accident, which were occurred from unknown vehicles. Aforementioned vehicles have been shown in accident in many such cases and compensations petitions have been instituted.
In the cases of such road accidents wherein First Information Reports are registered against unknown vehicles and when those unknown vehicles are not traced and local Investigating Officers submit their Final Report in the cases before the Hon'ble Courts. In such accidents if a person has died while travelling in those vehicles and second person has injured, then holding that injured person himself to be driver of the aforementioned vehicle, showing his negligence, by impleading as opposite party to the insurance company of his own vehicle for receiving compensation, compensation petitions are also filed for receiving amount of compensation.
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 16 of 38
2. CASES OF KNOWN VEHICLES WITHOUT INSURANCE If road accident is occurred with known vehicle and not insured at that time, in connivance with owner or driver of other insured vehicle in place of that vehicle, compensation petitions are instituted by showing aforementioned road accident of the said insured vehicle.
3. CASES OF FICTIONAL ACCIDENT AND FALSE PETITIONS Such false compensation petitions have also come into light wherein name and address of the petitioner could not be ascertained and imaginary story is created on behalf of such petitioner and false Claim petitions are instituted.
4. CASES RELATED TO CONNIVANCE OF VEHICLE OWNER/VEHICLE DRIVER/ADVOCATE For the purpose of earning illegal money, some actual vehicle owners and actual drivers of vehicles in connivance with advocates, submits registration certificates of their vehicles and Driver Licences in the unknown motor accident cases for filing fake petitions.
5. IMPLEADING NAME AND ADDRESS OF FAKE PERSONS IN ACTUAL ACCIDENTS Persons of fake names and addresses showing as drivers/cleaners in place of actual and correct injured persons (driver/cleaner) involved in the actual accident cases, compensation petitions are instituted in the W.C.A. courts by showing them injured in the aforementioned accidents.
6. CASES RELATED TO HANDICAPPED/ DECEASED PERSONS DUE TO OTHER REASONS During course of enquiry/investigation, such fake compensation petitions have also come into light wherein petitioner has become handicapped due to some other reason (like chopping off hand from thrasher machine), and second copy of fake handicapped certificates of their being disabled/ handicapped obtained again showing date of accident after date of fake accident and fake compensation petitions have also been instituted.
Despite not being injured in the road accidents, after death or injured for any other reasons, his family members or he himself showing him or that person to be the driver/cleaner/labourer who died or injured, compensation petitions are instituted in fake manner.
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 17 of 38
7. CASES RELATED TO FILING SAME CASE IN MORE THAN ONE COURTS In one road accident, wherein a person has died or injured, his family members or he himself submits compensation petition in the M.A.C.T. court related to aforementioned road accident. If decision of the court is not in his favour, then the same petitioner changes the story and again submits his petition before the W.C.A. court (Workmen's Compensation Act).
After institution of compensation related to a road accident in a court and after receiving its compensation amount, again same accident is shown with other vehicle which is insured with other insurance company and second Claim petition is instituted in the W.C.A. court of any other district for receiving compensation amount again.
8. CASES RELATED TO AFFIXING PHOTOGRAPH OF A SAME PERSON IN THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REGISTER IN MORE THAN ONE PETITIONS Some compensation petitions were instituted in the W.C.A. Court in the names of different persons. After judgement of the aforementioned court, photograph of the same person is affixed in more than one case/petition, on the Cheque Distribution Register for receiving cheque related to compensation amount and compensation amount was received and thereafter, entire aforementioned amount was got transferred by the concerned advocate in his own bank account or in the bank accounts of his family members.
9. CASES TO GET THE PETITIONS DISMISSED AFTER TRANSFER OF FAVOURING DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, RESUBMITTING THE PETITIONS AT HIS NEWLY POSTED PLACE During investigation/enquiry of the compensation petitions, it is also found that petitions related to occurrence of accidents instituted in the W.C.A. court of concerned District. When Deputy Labour Commissioner of W.C.A. court of aforementioned District transferred to some other district, then some advocates of aforementioned district get their compensation petitions dismissed, and thereafter they instituted new petitions again in aforementioned district where the then Deputy Labour Commissioner was transferred by showing fake address in the petitions.
10. INSTITUTION OF PETITIONS IN OTHER DISTRICT INSTEAD OF INSTITUTING PETITIONS IN THE Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 18 of 38 DISTRICT OF ACCIDENT SPOT/PLACE During investigation/enquiry of the compensation petitions, it is also found that some compensation petitions were not instituted in the court of district of place/spot of accident, rather they were instituted in the court of other district by mentioning only temporary address instead of mentioning original address of the petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that this temporary address also remains incomplete.
11. CASES RELATED TO FAKE VAKALATNAMA During investigation/enquiry of the compensation petitions related to road accidents, this fact has also come into light that actual/main advocate who has filed the claim petition, does not submit his own Vakalatnama in the concerned court, he submits Vakalatnama on behalf of such Advocate, who does not file the compensation petitions by mentioning his mobile number on the compensation petitions.
During investigation/enquiry of the compensation petitions related to road accidents, this fact has also come into light that advocate who has submitted compensation petition in the concerned court, he mentioned name of such fake person in place of name of Advocate, whose whereabouts could not be ascertained. Whereas such case was pursued by the advocate who submitted this petition in camouflage manner. ...".
(21) Here, it has become necessary for this Tribunal to note that after the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court took cognizance of the fake and fraudulent claims, that suddenly there has been a spurt in filing of claim petitions in Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Delhi relating to accidents which have taken place in other states particularly Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. It is this which makes it obligatory for the Tribunals in Delhi to carefully scrutinize these cases so as to rule out any foul play.
(22) This being the background, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. M/s. National Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 19 of 38 Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2010 (2) SCC 607 become relevant wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had mandated that the statute must be meticulously followed [which has now been reaffirmed in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 534/2020 vide orders dated 16.03.2021 & 16.11.2021], relevant portion of which is quoted as under:
"..... 4.2) The Legislature tried to reduce the period of pendency of claim cases and quicken the process of determination of compensation by making two significant changes in the Act, by Amendment Act 54 of 1994, making it mandatory for registration of a motor accident claim within one month of receipt of first information of the accident, without the claimants having to file a claim petition. Subsection (6) of section 158 of the Act provides:
"As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officerincharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and insurer".
Subsection (4) of Section 166 of the Act reads thus: "The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under subsection (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act".
Rule 150 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 prescribes the form (No.54) of the Police Report required to be submitted under section 158(6) of the Act. 4.3) This Court in General Insurance Council v. State of A.P. [2007 (12) SCC 354] emphasised the need for implementing the aforesaid provisions. This Court directed:
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 20 of 38 "It is, therefore, directed that all the State Governments and the Union Territories shall instruct all police officers concerned about the need to comply with the requirement of Section 158(6) keeping in view the requirement indicated in Rule 150 and in Form 54, Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Periodical checking shall be done by the Inspector General of Police concerned to ensure that the requirements are being complied with. In case there is noncompliance, appropriate action shall be taken against the erring officials. The Department of Road Transport and Highways shall make periodical verification to ensure that action is being taken and in case of any deviation immediately bring the same to the notice of the State Governments/Union Territories concerned so that necessary action can be taken against the officials concerned."
4.4) But unfortunately neither the police nor the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals have made any effort to implement these mandatory provisions of the Act. If these provisions are faithfully and effectively implemented, it will be possible for the victims of accident and/or their families to get compensation, in a span of few months. There is, therefore, an urgent need for the concerned police authorities and Tribunals to follow the mandate of these provisions.
Problem (iv)
5. Courts have always been concerned that the full compensation amount does not reach and benefit the victims and their families, particularly those who are uneducated, ignorant, or not worldlywise. Unless there are builtin safeguards they may be deprived of the benefit of compensation which may be the sole source of their future sustenance. This court has time and again insisted upon measures to ensure that the compensation amount is appropriately invested and protected and not frittered away owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. [See Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India 1991 (4) SCC 584 and General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 (2) SCC 176]. But in spite of the directions in these cases, the position continues to be far from unsatisfactory and in many cases unscrupulous relatives, agents and touts are taking away a big chunk of the compensation, by ingenious methods. Reports of Amicus Curiae
6. In this background, to find some solutions, on 9.9.2008, this Court requested Shri Gopal Subramaniam, to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. The learned amicus curiae with his Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 21 of 38 usual thoroughness and commitment has examined the issues and submitted a series of reports and has also made several suggestions for consideration. He has also referred to and relied on a series of zealous directions issued by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court to expedite and streamline the adjudication of motor vehicle claims and disbursement of compensation.
7. Having considered the nature of the problems and taking note of the several suggestions made by the learned Amicus Curiae and after hearing, we propose to issue a set of directions to the police authorities and Claims Tribunals. We also propose to make some suggestions for implementation by Insurance Companies and some suggestions for the consideration of the Parliament and the Central Government.
Directions to Police Authorities
8. The Director General of Police of each State is directed to instruct all Police Stations in his State to comply with the provisions of Section 158(6) of the Act. For this purpose, the following steps will have to be taken by the Station House Officers of the jurisdictional police stations:
(i) Accident Information Report in Form No. 54 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 (`AIR' for short) shall be submitted by the police (Station House Officer) to the jurisdictional Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, within 30 days of the registration of the FIR. In addition to the particulars required to be furnished in Form No. 54, the police should also collect and furnish the following additional particulars in the AIR to the Tribunal:
(i) The age of the victims at the time of accident;
(ii) The income of the victim;
(iii) The names and ages of the dependent family members.
(ii) The AIR shall be accompanied by the attested copies of the FIR, site sketch/ mahazar/photographs of the place of occurrence, driving licence of the driver, insurance policy (and if necessary, fitness certificate) of the vehicle and postmortem report (in case of death) or the Injury/Wound certificate (in the case of injuries). The names/addresses of injured or dependent family members of the deceased should also be furnished to the Tribunal.
(iii) Simultaneously, copy of the AIR with annexures thereto shall be furnished to the concerned insurance company to enable the Insurer to process the claim.
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 22 of 38
(iv) The police shall notify the first date of hearing fixed by the Tribunal to the victim (injured) or the family of the victim (in case of death) and the driver, owner and insurer. If so directed by the Tribunal, the police may secure their presence on the first date of hearing.
9. To avoid any administrative difficulties in immediate implementation of sections 158(6) of the Act, we permit such implementation to be carried out in three stages. In the first stage, all police stations/claims Tribunals in the NCT Region and State Capital regions shall implement the provisions by end of April 2010. In the second stage, all the police stations/claims Tribunals in district headquarters regions shall implement the provisions by the end of August 2010. In the third stage, all police stations/Claims Tribunals shall implement the provisions by the end of December, 2010. The Director Generals shall ensure that necessary forms and infrastructural support is made available to give effect to Section 158 (6) of the Act.
10. Section 196 of the Act provides that whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Section 146 shall be punishable with imprisonment which may be extended to three months, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1000/, or with both. Though the statute requires prosecution of the driver and owner of uninsured vehicles, this is seldom done. Thereby a valuable deterrent is ignored. We therefore direct the Director Generals to issue instructions to prosecute drivers and owners of uninsured vehicles under Section 196 of the Act.
11. The Transport Department, Health Department and other concerned departments shall extend necessary co operation to the DirectorGenerals to give effect to Section 158 (6).
Directions to the Claims Tribunals
12. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to instruct all Claims Tribunals in his State to register the reports of accidents receive under Section 158 (6) of the Act as applications for compensation under Section 166 (4) of the Act and deal with them without waiting for the filing of claim applications by the injured or by the family of the deceased. The Registrar General shall ensure that necessary Registers, forms and other support is extended to the Tribunal to give effect to Section 166 (4) of the Act.
13. For complying with section 166(4) of the Act, the jurisdictional Motor Accident Claims Tribunals shall initiate the Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 23 of 38 following steps:
(a) The Tribunal shall maintain an Institution Register for recording the AIRs which are received from the Station House Officers of the Police Stations and register them as miscellaneous petitions. If any private claim petitions are directly filed with reference to an AIR, they should also be recorded in the Register.
(b) The Tribunal shall list the AIRs as miscellaneous petitions.
It shall fix a date for preliminary hearing so as to enable the police to notify such date to the victim (family of victim in the event of death) and the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Once the claimant/s appear, the miscellaneous application shall be converted to claim petition. Where a claimant/s file the claim petition even before the receipt of the AIR by the Tribunal, the AIR may be tagged to the claim petition.
(c) The Tribunal shall enquire and satisfy itself that the AIR relates to a real accident and is not the result of any collusion and fabrication of an accident (by any `Police Officer Advocate - Doctor' nexus, which has come to light in several cases).
(d) The Tribunal shall by a SUMMARY ENQUIRY ascertain the dependent family members/legal heirs. The jurisdictional police shall also enquire and submit the names of the dependent legal heirs.
(e) The Tribunal shall categories the claim cases registered, into those where the insurer disputes liability and those where the insurer does not dispute the liability.
(f) Wherever the insurer does not dispute the liability under the policy, the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to determine the compensation amount by a summary enquiry or refer the matter to the Lok Adalat for settlement, so as to dispose of the claim petition itself, within a time frame not exceeding six months from the date of registration of the claim petition.
(g) The insurance companies shall be directed to deposit the admitted amount or the amount determined, with the claims tribunals within 30 days of determination. The Tribunals should ensure that the compensation amount is kept in Fixed deposit and disbursed as per the directions contained in General Manager, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas [1994 (2) SCC 176].
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 24 of 38
(h) As the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Section 158(6) and 166(4) of the Act, are different in nature from an application by the victim/s under Section 166(1) of the Act, Section 170 will not apply. The insurers will therefore be entitled to assist the Tribunal (either independently or with the owners of the vehicles) to verify the correctness in regard to the accident, injuries, age, income and dependents of the deceased victim and in determining the quantum of compensation.
14. The aforesaid directions to the Tribunals are without prejudice to the discretion of each Tribunal to follow such summary procedure as it deems fit as provided under Section 169 of the Act. MANY TRIBUNALS INSTEAD OF HOLDING AN INQUIRY INTO THE CLAIM BY FOLLOWING SUITABLE SUMMARY PROCEDURE, AS MANDATED BY SECTION 168 AND 169 OF THE ACT, TEND TO CONDUCT MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES LIKE REGULAR CIVIL SUITS. THIS SHOULD BE AVOIDED. THE TRIBUNAL SHALL TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE IN DECIDING AND EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR COMPENSATION and make effective use of Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, to determine the just compensation...."
(23) Now coming to the present claim petition, I may note that despite grant of repeated opportunities, no explanation/ clarification offered on the aspect as to why this Claim Petition be not put in the Doubtful/ Suspicious category in terms of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shafiq Ahmed Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra). During the course of arguments, on 14.12.2021 the respondent no.1 Subhash Chand placed on record a copy of MOU dated 18.08.2017 executed at Civil Court at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh bearing the signatures of both the petitioner and the respondent no.1 showing that they had entered into an out of court settlement mutually agreeing that they will not carryout any legal Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 25 of 38 proceedings against each other and a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ had been handed over to the injured/ petitioner for his treatment. It was also agreed that in future the petitioner will not carryout any legal proceedings in respect of the offending vehicle. The said MOU was put to the petitioner Vrijo @ Vijay Singh on 15.12.2021 on which he had admitted that the MOU dated 18.08.2017 Ex.CX1 was executed between him and the respondent no.1 bearing his signatures at point A on all the three pages. According to the petitioner, he is aware of the contents of the agreement which have been accepted by him pursuant to which he had received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ towards full and final settlement of his claim in the present case. The statement of Vrijo @ Vijay Singh recorded by this Tribunal/ Court on 15.12.2021 is reproduced as under:
".... Court Question: Whether the MOU dated 18.08.2017 was arrived at between you and respondent no.1 which bears your signatures at point 'A' on all three pages of the agreement?
Answer: It is correct that the MOU dated 18.08.2017 had been arrived at between me and respondent no.1, copy of which is Ex.CX1 (OSR). The said MOU also bears my signatures at point A on all three pages. I am aware of the contents of the agreement which are accepted by me and pursuant to which I had received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ towards full and final settlement of my claim in the present case....".
(24) On the basis of the claim petition, various documents placed on record and the evidence adduced, certain glaring aspects have Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 26 of 38 emerged, which I now enumerate as under:
➢ Firstly, the complete set of chargesheet of the criminal case has not been placed on record and only Seven pages of the certified copies have been placed on record. A perusal of the same shows that the accident had taken place on 13.08.2017 at 4:30 PM whereas the FIR was registered on 07.11.2017 at 1:20 PM i.e. after a long delay of Two Months and Twenty Four Days (Total Eighty Four days). The said FIR was registered on the basis of complaint of one Kishan Singh S/o Ganpat Singh relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:
"....Dinank 13.08.2017 ko samay karib 4:30 baje shaam ko Surajpur se ek auto No. UP16DT6420 se Ghaziabad ja raha tha. Us Auto ka driver Subhash S/o Murarilal Niwasi Makan Sankhya A 42, Gali No.1, Saraswati Kunj, Chipiyana Khurd, Tigri, Zila Gautam Budh Nagar tezi va laparwahi se chlate huey Hanuman Mandir Bisrakh ke pass bijli ke khambe me takkar mar di. Ghatna me aayi chooton ke karan Payal Putri Vijay Singh (Vrijo) niwasi seesa ki Garhi Tehsil Maat, Zila Mathura ki ilaz ke dauran dinank 21.09.2017 ko mrityu ho gayi tatha Vijay Singh ko kafi chooten aayi or Vijay ka dahina pair cut gya. Main Vijay ka ilaj karana ke uprant thane aaya hun...."
No explanation is forthcoming with regard to the above long delay of Eighty Four Days in lodging the FIR which is despite the fact that according to the petitioner Kishan Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 27 of 38 Singh was also with him at the time of accident. ➢ Secondly, according to the petitioner Vrijo @ Vijay Singh, it was Kishan Singh who made a call to the PCR after the accident. However, no such PCR Form has been placed on record nor the complaint of Kishan Singh has been filed nor his statement recorded by the Investigating Agency has been placed on record.
➢ Thirdly, the first information given to the local police in the form of Daily Diary or General Diary has not been placed on record which would reveal the details of the person who had informed the police at the first instance. If Kishan Singh was present at the spot, he would have first called the police or PCR informing them of the details of the alleged accident and also would have accompanied the injured to the Hospital, which is not the case. Rather, the certified copy of MLC of the injured Vijay prepared at Government District Combined Hospital, Sector30, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh shows that the injured was brought to the hospital by Ambulance & Wife. The material document in the form of PCR Form and statement of Kishan Singh have been withheld and concealed from this Court/ Tribunal for which an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the petitioner.
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 28 of 38 ➢ Fourthly, as per the testimony of Virjo @ Vijay Singh (PW1) there were three adult passengers and two minor children besides the driver and the Auto Rickshaw was running at the speed of 80 Kms per hour. If that was so, I am sure the other passengers would also have sustained injuries but the entire record is silent in this regard. Not even a single averment has been made by the petitioner either in his claim petition or in the affidavit of evidence to the effect that any other person had sustained injuries in the accident in question.
➢ Fifthly, the petitioner has not placed on record the material/ relevant documents i.e. statements of witnesses including eye witnesses recorded by the Investigating Agency reflected on Page 3 of the chargesheet i.e. Kishan Singh, Vijay Singh and Subhash. The first statement made by Vijay Singh (petitioner) and Kishan Singh (complainant) have also not been placed on record. It is these statements which would have revealed the sequence of events but the same have been withheld from this Court/ Tribunal for which an adverse inference is drawn against the petitioner. ➢ Sixthly, the perusal of the chargesheet shows that one Subhash S/o Murari Lal R/o Chipiyana Khurd Tigri, Bisrakh, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh has been made a witness of identification. This Subhash S/o Murari Lal Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 29 of 38 is none else but the respondent no.1 before this Court/ Tribunal (though his father's name is shown as Sh. Munni Lal but the address is same). There is no answer to the query which has arisen as to how the respondent no.1 Subhash was made a witness in the criminal case. Here, I may note that initially in the FIR this Subhash S/o Murari Lal R/o House No. A42, Gali No.1, Saraswati Kunj, Chipyana Khurd Tigri, Bisrakh, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh has been shown as accused/ suspect being the driver of the offending vehicle. However, in the charge sheet Umesh Sharma (respondent no.2 before this Court) has been shown as accused/ driver of the alleged offending vehicle. The respondent no.1 Subhash Chand has made a specific statement under Section 165 of Evidence Act before the Ld. Predecessor of this Court/ Tribunal on 04.11.2019 wherein he admitted that he was the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. UP16DT6420 which was involved in the accident on 13.08.2017. According to respondent no.1 Subhash Chand, the accident did not occur due to his rash and negligent driving since a cow had jumped before his vehicle. There is a serious contradiction in the version put forth by the petitioner and the version as putforth by the Investigating Agency in Uttar Pradesh. There is no explanation for the same.
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 30 of 38 ➢ Seventhly, the relevant/ vital documents i.e. MLCs/ MLRs of the other injured in the accident; Mechanical Inspection Reports of the alleged offending vehicle; Seizure memo of the offending vehicle; Case Diaries; Statements of witnesses etc. have been concealed from this Court/ Tribunal for which an adverse inference is likely to follow. ➢ Eighthly, I note that while on the one hand Kishan Singh who is the brother in law (Jija) of the petitioner Vrijo @ Vijay Singh became a witness to the MOU entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 on 13.08.2017 (as per copy of settlement Ex.CX1) whereas on the other hand, he became a complainant and on his complaint the present FIR was registered on 07.11.2017. The conduct of this Kishan Singh is not above board. This Kishan Singh has not been examined by the petitioner to explain the above discrepancies.
➢ Ninethly, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has desperately tried to clarify that the petitioner Vrijo @ Vijay Singh did not enter into any MOU dated 18.08.2017 which had been executed by the claimant's brother without any authority and is not binding upon the claimant. It is pointed out that the respondent no.1 Subhash Chand and the witnesses Harish Chand and Kishan Singh have created/ manufactured a Compromise on a stamp paper dated 18.08.2017 in the name Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 31 of 38 of claimant Vijay Singh without the signatures of claimant since he was hospitalized at GTB Hospital from 13.08.2010 to 05.10.2017. The above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner are highly misplaced and unbelievable in the light of the admissions made by Vrijo @ Vijay Singh before this Tribunal. I may observe that in order to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the grounds raised, the petitioner Vrijo @ Vijay Singh was called to the Court/ Tribunal on 15.12.2021 and MOU dated 18.08.2017 was specifically put to him upon which he had admitted having entered into the MOU with the respondent no.1 and also admitted that the said MOU bears his signatures at Point A on all the three pages. The petitioner Vrijo @ Vijay Singh further admitted that he was aware of the contents of the agreement which was accepted by him pursuant to which he had received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ towards full and final settlement of his claim in the present case. Perusal of the said MOU Ex.CX1 also shows that one Harish Chand who is the elder brother of the petitioner Vrijo @ Vijay Singh, had signed the said MOU as a witness along with Kishan Singh (brother in law/ Jija of Vrijo @ Vijay Singh). I may also note that in the said MOU it has been specifically mentioned that the parties i.e. Subhash Chand (first Party) and Vijay Singh (Second Party) shall not initiate Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 32 of 38 any legal proceedings including the police report or MACT. The relevant portion of the said MOU is reproduced as under:
"..... Yeh ki ukt gaadi se sambandhit ab main dwitiya paksh bhavishay me bhi koi aisi kanooni karyawahi ya police report ya koi FIR darz nahi karaunga jissey ki pratham paksh ko koi haani ho. Tatha ukt gaadi sambandhit mein bharat varsh ke kisi bhi police station ya nyayalya meein vaad kisi bhi prakar ka darj nahin karaunga....".
The FIR was got registered belatedly on the basis of complaint made by Kishan Singh (Jija of the petitioner) by concealing this fact of compromise/ settlement vide MOU Ex.CX1, both in the complaint as well as in the claim petition. The signatures of Vijay Singh present on the said MOU are primafacie matching with his signatures present on record. Even otherwise, the petitioner Vrijo @ Vijay Singh has duly admitted that the said MOU bear his signatures at Point A on all the three pages and hence, the question of this MOU being created without the knowledge of the petitioner does not arise.
➢ Tenthly, the petitioner has placed on a record a certificate dated 30.10.2017 issued by Sapna Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 33 of 38 having office at Plot No.141, 142 Ecotech 1 st Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh showing that he has worked as Mattress Mechanic in the said organization on wages of Rs.18,000/ per month from 01.07.2017 to 13.08.2017. In this regard, I may note that the petitioner Vrijo @ Vijay Singh is a resident of Village Sheesha Garhi, Post Bhadanwara District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh whereas the office of his employer is situated at Greater Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. It is improbable that the petitioner would have covered the distance from Mathura to Greater Noida on daily basis. No explanation is forthcoming to the same. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not placed on record his bank account statement or the copy of his bank passbook showing the relevant entries. The possibility of the petitioner having procured this certificate only to secure compensation on higher side, cannot be ruled out.
➢ Lastly, there is absence of material on record to confirm the satisfactory compliance of provisions of Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Neither the status of the Criminal Case instituted before the concerned court at Hathras, Uttar Pradesh has been placed on record nor the status of the proceedings in compliance of provisions of Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act (before the competent Court/ Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 34 of 38 Tribunal) has been placed before this Tribunal [Reference is made to the judgment in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2010 (2) SCC 607 Para 12]. An adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the claimants in this regard.
(25) It is writ large from the above that the present claim petition has been filed before this Court/ Tribunal by overstretching the jurisdiction and by concealing the material documents and also by concealing the fact relating to the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 Subhash Chand. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was pressurized or misled by anyone to entered into the said settlement, rather he has duly admitted the said MOU. The FIR has been registered after entering into a settlement which MOU has been concealed in the claim petition. The material/ vital documents in the form of first Daily Diary/ General Diary; statements of various witnesses recorded by the Investigating Agency; Mechanical Inspection Reports; Seizure memos; Case Diaries etc. have been withheld and concealed from this Court/ Tribunal. Rather, there is a desperate attempt by the petitioner to implicate the respondent no.2 Umesh Sharma by showing him as the driver of the offending vehicle whereas on the contrary it was the respondent no.1 Subhash Chand who was shown as the driver of the offending vehicle in the FIR as admitted by him before this Court/ Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 35 of 38 Tribunal. The possibility of the driver having been swapped cannot be ruled out. It is this which brings the version of the petitioner as reflected in the Claim Petition within suspicious/ doubtfull category. The reason why the petitioner has filed this Claim Petition before this Court/ Tribunal by concealing the material documents and facts is apparent writ large or else there was no reason why the claim petition was filed in a District/ State other than the District/ State where the accident took place or where the claimant reside. (26) In this regard, I may also observe that despite the same the petitioner could not justify his convenience before this Tribunal situated almost 147 Kms away from his residence. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shafiq Ahmed Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) cannot be ignored. Firstly, there is an unexplained long delay of Two Months and Twenty Four Days in registration of FIR with no justification forthcoming. Secondly, the FIR was lodged after the petitioner Vrijo @ Vijay Singh entered into a settlement with the respondent no.1 Subhash Chand and had already received the settlement amount of Rs.1,20,000/. Thirdly, the respondent no.1 Subhash Chand was shown as the driver of the offending vehicle in the FIR registered at Police Station Bisrakh, Uttar Pradesh whereas now in the Claim Petition as also in the chargesheet Umesh Sharma has been shown as the driver for which no explanation is forthcoming. Fourthly, the alleged eye witness to the accident namely Kishan Singh who is the Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 36 of 38 Jija of the petitioner and also the complainant/ eye witness in the present case as shown in the chargesheet (page 3 and 4) has not been examined before this Court/ Tribunal nor his statement recorded by the Investigating Agency has been placed on record nor the Investigating Officer of the case has been examined. Lastly, an incomplete charge sheet has been filed without placing on record the certified copy of the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Mechanical Inspection Report, Seizure Memo, Case Diaries etc. which vital documents have been withheld from this Court/ Tribunal and raises a suspicion/ doubt in the mind of the Court/ Tribunal. It is not open for this Court/ Tribunal to carry out a parallel trial and give any findings on facts, on the basis of incomplete material, since the same is likely to come in the way of trial of the criminal case pending before the concerned court at Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. (27) This being the background, I hold that the petitioner has not been able to prove that he had sustained Grievous Injured in an accident which took place on 13.08.2017 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Bisrakh, Distt. Gautam Bugh, U.P. due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. UP16DT6420. In fact, the petitioner has not been able to prove as to who was driving the alleged offending vehicle i.e. whether the respondent no.1 Subhash Chand or whether Umesh Sharma.
(28) All the issues are accordingly decided against the petitioner.
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 37 of 38 RELIEF:
(29) In view of my findings on the various issues, I hereby hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. (30) The Claim Petition is hereby Dismissed. (31) A copy of this Judgment is directed to be sent to the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi with a request to forward the same to the SIT constituted at Uttar Pradesh under the directions of the Allahabad High Court (since the accident took place at Uttar Pradesh) and to the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate and competent Court/ Tribunal where report under Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed.
(32) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 13.04.2022 PO (MACT01), Central
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
Vrijo @ Vijay Singh Vs. Subhash Chand & Ors., MACT no. 1067/2018 Judgment dated 13.04.2022 Page No. 38 of 38