Dismissed

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Geeta Bhatia and 4 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2021FAFO/252/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company against a compensation award. The court held that the contention regarding a false accident report was unfounded as no motive was established and the involved police report did not corroborate the appellant's claim.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Geeta Bhatia and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 252 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Geeta Bhatia And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pawan Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Kumar Srivastava,Santosh Kumar Tiwari,Satish Chandra Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Sasntosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of award dated 29.11.2018 passed by learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bareilly Region, Bareilly in Case No. 122/ECA-2016 mainly on two grounds namely as per report published in daily local newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on the next date of the incident i.e. 11.6.2016, accident had, in fact, taken place between two scooters, out of which one was being driven by the deceased Mukesh Bhatia, but lateron with a view to extract claim under the provisions of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, a false report was lodged on 11.6.2016 showing him to be an employee and deployed as a car driver and accordingly this claim has been allowed.

¶7

It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal has cryptically rejected an application moved on behalf of the Insurance Company to examine the Investigating Officer of the criminal case by saying that if Insurance Company is desirous of leading evidence of such Investigating Officer then it can do so on its own cost and expenses.

¶8

Sri Pawan Kumar Singh submits that learned Claims Tribunal has over looked the vital fact that I.O. being a government official could not have been produced before the Court without leave and indulgence of the court and that has precluded the Insurance Company from leading vital evidence to demonstrate that a false and concocted story has been prepared to claim, compensation.

¶9

Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari submits that in this case final report was produced which is on record as document no. 78. In this final report police has not exonerated the accused and has not supported the story of the Insurance Company as was published in the newspaper that accident had taken place

¶10

between two scooters and car has been falsely implicated on a subsequent date.

¶11

After hearing arguments put forth by learned counsel for the parties and going through the record too, it is apparent that Insurance Company has not examined any newspaper reporter to substantiate the news as was published in 'Amar Ujala'. 'Amar Ujala' is a private organization for which no summon was required. For this news report no cognizance could have been taken by the learned Commissioner under Employees' Compensation Act. Therefore that report has been rightly discarded as a piece of waste paper.

¶12

Since plea of rejecting application moved on behalf of the Insurance Company to summon the I.O. is concerned that too looses its efficacy when final report is available on record and does not corroborate the story put forth by the Insurance Company on the basis of unsubstantiated news paper report. Now third issue which emerges even if the facts are taken into its entirety is in regard to lodging of false and concocted report. Even if hypothetically newspaper report is taken to be correct then nothing precluded the claimant to claim compensation, under Motor Vehicles Act alleging negligence of the driver of the scooter on which other party was travelling. Accident took place on 10.6.2016 and FIR was lodged on 11.6.2016. It has come on record that deceased Mukesh Bhatia sustained grievous injury of such nature that he died within no time of occurrence of the accident. Therefore, when dead body was lying in the home of the claimant it sounds bit improbable that a false story was concocted there to implead the car. Further there is no material on record to show that the scooter which is arrayed as offending vehicle was either driven or owned by any of the close relative of the deceased so there was motive to exonerate them. No material is on record to show that third party was not inured. Therefore even if the story and the issue raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company are examined in the light of the probable hypothesis then that too does not stand proved. Therefore I have no hesitation to say that there is no substance in the appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶13

The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.

¶14

Order Date :- 20.1.2021 S.K.S.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Geeta Bhatia and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Geeta Bhatia and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Nafees and Another Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 3 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nirdesh Devi and 6 Others

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Neetu and 5 Others

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Vidya Devi and 5 Others

Gulapsa and 3 Others Vs Mohammad Ismail and 2 Others

Devender Kumar Verma Alis Muniya and Others Vs R.S.R.T.C. and Others