Allowed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar Sharma and Others

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2018WRIC/5951/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the amendment application filed by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. to plead fraud regarding the authenticity of a cover note and insurance policy submitted by the claimant, despite a prior admission, and directed the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal to allow evidence on the issue.

What did the court decide?

The amendment application was allowed to add the plea of fraud. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal was directed to allow all parties to lead evidence on the plea of fraud.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Arvind Kumar… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5951 of 2013

¶3

Petitioner :- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Arvind Kumar Sharma And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Mohan Srivastava,S.C.,V.P. Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

The present petition is directed against the order of rejection of amendment application dated 6.12.2012 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.244 of 2008. The claim petition was filed with the assertion that the offending vehicle was insured with the petitioner insurance company namely Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and the owner of the vehicle was having a valid insurance policy on the date of accident, which is 7.2.2010.

¶7

It is noteworthy that the owner of the offending vehicle namely insured filed an insurance policy before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. A copy of the cover note of the insurance policy, allegedly issued by the opposite party no.3/insured has also been filed by the claimant so as to prove that the offending vehicle was insured.

¶8

Initially, in the written statement filed by the petitioner insurance company, it had admitted the cover note No.109000384830 being valid for the period of 10.12.2009 to 9.12.2010. However, by means of the amendment application dated 29.5.2012, it was brought on record that after investigation of the record of insurance company, it was transpired that the aforesaid cover note had already been lost on 5.6.2009 and a First Information Report N.C.R. No.1836 of 2009 was lodged in the Police Station Preet Vihar, Delhi. The said fact could not be placed on record at the time of filing of the written statement. The insurance policy filed by the owner was also found fake from the perusal of the records of the insurance company. The insurance company has not received any premium with regard to the offending vehicle.

¶9

The amendment application has been rejected on the ground that admission made in the written statement by the insurance company could not have been withdrawn.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner though has not been able to make any submissions with regard to the legal position that any admission made in the written statement with regard to a fact situation, cannot be withdrawn by the defendant by means of amendment, brought at a subsequent stage. However, he submits that a plea of fraud committed by the claimant in compliance with the owner of the offending vehicle had been pleaded by means of the amendment application filed on 29.5.2012, which could not have been ignored by the court below.

¶11

The fraud is a question of evidence which could have been decided

¶12

after giving opportunity to all the parties concerned to lead their evidence.

¶13

On the said limited issue, this Court finds that the order of rejection of amendment application in denying the insurance company to plead fraud allegedly committed by the claimant and owner in filing the claim petition, cannot be allowed to stand.

¶14

The amendment sought by the insurance company is allowed to the extent of adding the plea of fraud allegedly committed in filing cover note No.109000384830 by the claimant and the insurance policy filed by the owner of the vehicle before the Tribunal.

¶15

In view of the above, as a result of disposal of the present petition, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal shall allow all the parties to lead their evidence on the plea of fraud. An endeavour shall be made by the Tribunal to decide the Motor Accident Claims Petition No.244 of 2010 within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶16

The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.12.2018 Jyotsana

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar Sharma and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar Sharma and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Madhu Mishra @ Gudia and Another Vs Prem Kumar Mishra

Sunil Kumar Agrawal Vs Surendra Kumar Agrawal and 5 Others

Sheesh Ram Vs Civil Judge (S.D.) Farrukhabad and 2 Others

Jawahir Lal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Kedar Vs Jhinnu and 3 Others

Smt.Geeta Dubey and Another Vs Smt.Dhanseera and Another