2001(1) Kar. L.J. 210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, MYSORE
Versus
B.C. KUMAR AND ANOTHER
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, Section 168- Accident – Injury Claim for compensation Driver of offending vehicle pleading guilty before Criminal Court – Whether it become sole criterion to allow claim – Conversion of a self- accident into an accident involving vehicle insured Offending vehicle dashed against claimants standing on road In turn claimant hit road side tree – Sustained injuries- Claim filed against vehicle involved for having dashed against claimants Motor Accident Claims Tribunal accepted case and based its conclusion on the pleading of guilt of driver before Criminal Court – Fastened liability on Insurance Company – Insurance Company challenged Pleaded that claimant converted a self-accident into an accident involving vehicle insured – Also contended that accident never happened as alleged – Got the whole story built up by projecting the case – Held – Complaint was lodged after 1 months by claimant’s father – No legal evidence placed by marking document pleading guilty before Criminal Court-Claim Tribunal should not have placed sole reliance on judgment of criminal case – Should have assessed evidence placed before its independently – Should not have placed implicit reliance on the circumstance of driver pleading guilty – Evidence before the Tribunal tells a different story and gives rise to doubt – Claimant failed to establish that accident occurred on the day, time and place as alleged – Complaint lodged by father of claimant after 1 months of accident – On the very day of complaint crime details document surfaced, IMV report drawn and mahazar drawn – No mention of vehicle being seized – Injured not present when mahazar drawn – Not known as to how and who pointed out place of accident – Driver who pleaded guilty belong to the very same village from which the claimant hails – Possibility of co-operation of driver to file a false claim to enrich themself cannot be ruled out – Claimant has suppressed real fact – The accident sought to be converted into one in which injury was sustained by claimant Tribunal not appreciated evidence carefully – Award of Tribunal is set aside.