Quashed

Sukumar Basak v. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2026CO/2/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Accident Claim appeal challenging a High Court award, the Gaumati High Court addressed allegations that the claim was fraudulent due to the wrongful implicate-ment of the insured vehicle. While the insurer argued it was unaware of the fraud during the original claim trial, the Court held that the foundational fact of vehicle involvement must be first established. Relying on Safiq Ahmed, the Court limited its own inquiry and ordered the reference of the matter to the Special Investigating Team to investigate the suspicious circumstances before deciding the claim afresh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and award dated 06.06.2016 were quashed and set aside. The matter was referred to the Special Investigating Team, Assam, to investigate the facts of the accident.

Sukumar Basak Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and 4… — Motor Accident Claims | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/11

GAHC010029442016

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : MACApp./323/2016

¶6

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

¶7

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ASSAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, GUWAHATI INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO. AS-18D/0084 MOTOR CYCLE SUPER SPLENDOR

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

SMT DULALI BASAK and 4 ORS W/O SRI SRI SANKAR BASAK

¶10

2:SANKAR BASAK

¶11

S/O LATE GUBINDA BASAK

¶12

3:RATUL BASAK

¶13

S/O SRI SANKAR BASAK ALL ARE R/O VILL. BAHATI PART-II P.O. BAHATI P.S. MATIA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT GANDHIBASTI GUWAHATI-3 P.S. CHANDMARI DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM.

¶14

4:SUKUMAR BASAK S/O SHYAMLAL BASAK

¶15

Page No.# 2/11

¶16

R/O VILL. and P.O. BAHATI DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM.

¶17

5:GANESH CHANDRA BASAK S/O SRI PREMLAL BASAK R/O SALMARA P.S. MATIA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS.P M DUTTA, MR. S P SHARMA,MS. C MOZUMDAR,MS. R D MOZUMDAR,MR.A DUTTA

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A T SARKAR R- 1-3, MR.A HUSSAIN(R- 1-3),MR. R SHARMA,MR. S K GOSWAMI

¶20

Linked Case : CO/2/2022

¶21

SUKUMAR BASAK S/O SHYAMLAL BASAK R/O VILL. AND P.O. BAHATI DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM.

¶22

VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 4 ORS. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ASSAF ALI ROAD NEW DELHI AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE GUWAHATI. 2:SMT. DULALI BASAK W/O- SRI SANKAR BASAK R/O- VILL.- BAHATI PART-II P.O. BAHATI P.S. MATIA

¶23

Page No.# 3/11

¶24

DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT GANDHIBASTI GUWAHATI-3 P.S. CHANDMARI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 3:SANKAR BASAK S/O- LATE GUBINDA BASAK R/O- VILL.- BAHATI PART-II P.O. BAHATI P.S. MATIA DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT GANDHIBASTI GUWAHATI-3 P.S. CHANDMARI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 4:RATUL BASAK S/O- SRI SANKAR BASAK R/O- VILL.- BAHATI PART-II P.O. BAHATI P.S. MATIA DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT GANDHIBASTI GUWAHATI-3 P.S. CHANDMARI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 5:GANESH CHANDRA BASAK S/O- SRI PREMLAL BASAK R/O- SALMARA P.S. MATIA DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM -----------Advocate for : MR. S K GOSWAMI Advocate for : MR. A DUTTA appearing for THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 4 ORS.

¶25

Page No.# 4/11

¶26

BEFORE

¶27

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

¶28

Date of hearing :15.09.2026 Date of judgment :15.09.2026

¶29

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶30

Heard learned counsel, Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, for the appellant in MACApp./323/2016. Also heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the vehicle owner/Cross Objector in Cross Objection No.2/2022 and Mr. A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants.

¶31

2. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by the appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,challenging the judgment and award dated 06.06.2016 passed by the learned M.A.C.T. No. 1, Kamrup Guwahati in MAC Case No. 143/2015.

¶32

3. The appeal is filed mainly on the ground that the tribunal had committed an error while calculating the loss of dependency as the choice of multiplier is to be determined by the age of the deceased, when the deceased is a bachelor and the claimants are the aged parents of the deceased. During the pendency of this present appeal, a cross objection registered as cross objection No. 2 of 2022 has been filed by the owner of the vehicle No. AS-18D-0084, which was alleged to be the offending vehicle in the accident which occurred on 24.10.2014.

¶33

4. By filing the Cross Objection No. 2 of 2022, one Shri Sukumar Basak, the

¶34

Page No.# 5/11

¶35

owner of the vehicle No. AS-18D-0084 has stated that the respondent No. 1, 2, 3/claimants filed the M.A.C. Case No. 143/2015 before the learned M.A.C.T. No. 1 Kamrup, Guwahati.In the said claim case, it was alleged that his motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-18D-0084 was involved in a motor vehicle accident which allegedly occurred on 24.10.2014. As a result, one Gobinda Basak, sustained injuries and ultimately died during treatment on 27.10.2014.It is the specific contention of the owner of the vehicle/cross objector that his vehicle was not involved in the accident and the vehicle involved in the accident belonged to one Ajgar Ali of Bahati Village in the District of Goalpara, Assam. However, the matter was settled between the claimants and the said Ajgar Ali.

¶36

5. Thereafter, the M.A.C. Case No. 143/2015 was filed showing involvement of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-18D-0084 belonging to the crossobjector.

¶37

6. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Cross Objector that the claimants are his own relatives, but his vehicle has been falsely implicated for illegal gains and there is a collision between the police and the claimants and they have taken his signature in some documents by threatening him. After obtaining his signature in the documents, the M.A.C. Case No. 143/2015 was filed and though his vehicle was not involved in the accident, he received a notice from this Court summoning him to appear before the Lok Adalat and on that day he had informed in writing that his vehicle was not involved in the accident.

¶38

7. The said letter written by the Cross Objector is available on record.

¶39

8. Learned Counsel for the Cross Objector/vehicle owner further submits that the M.A.C. Case No. 143/2015 has been filed showing involvement of vehicle

¶40

Page No.# 6/11

¶41

No. AS-18D-0084 and a false Police Case No. 193/2014 has been prepared showing involvement of his vehicle and as such it is a fraud on the part of the claimants for illegal gains and on this ground alone the judgment and award dated 06.06.2016 passed in M.A.C. Case No. 323/2016 is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set aside and quashed.

¶42

9. Learned Counsel for the Cross Objector/vehicle owner has relied on the order of this Court, dated 13.08.2026 passed in M.A.C. Appeal No. 39/2024 and also relied on the case of Safiq Ahmed vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.and others passed in Special Leave Petition No. 1110/2017, reported in (2021) 9 SCR 560 to persuade this Court that the instant case is a fit case to be referred to the Special Investigating Team, Assam to investigate the facts and circumstances with regard to the accident which allegedly occurred on 24.10.2014 at Gosai Bari, Dolgama, PWD Road, near Kali Mandir, under Matia Police Station.

¶43

10. The learned counsel, Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, appearing for the appellant in MAC Appeal 323 of 2016, submits that the Cross Objection No. 2 of 2022 was filed during the pendency of MAC Appeal 323 of 2016. It was only when the Cross Objection No. 2 of 2022 was filed that the appellant insurance company came to learn about the fraud which was committed by the claimants. Therefore, the ground of fraud was not raised in the MAC Appeal 323 of 2016.

¶44

11. The learned counsel submits that the appellant company, while filing the appeal, had no knowledge about the fraud played by the claimants. However, she submits that allegation of fraud can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and the learned counselrelied on the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd.v. Rajendra Singh and others reported in (2000)3 SCC 581 to support her submission that a prayer for recalling the

¶45

Page No.# 7/11

¶46

impugned judgment and award on the basis of newly discovered facts, amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation.

¶47

12. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurer has further submitted that it is also a pertinent fact that the FIR in the instant case was lodged only on 07.12.2014, whereas the accident occurred on 24.10.2014.

¶48

13. The learned counselfor the claimant respondents on the other hand submits that the cross-objector knew about the filing of the MAC Case No. 143 of 2015 as he has himself stated in his pleadings that he was put under pressure to take his signatures in some papers before filing the claim petition. In spite of having such knowledge that the claim petition was filed, the crossobjector has not challenged the charge sheet or the FIR or the seizure list at any stage.

¶49

14. The learned counsel also submits that the claimants had examined an eyewitness as PW2. The PW2 deposed that at the time of the accident he was present at the place of occurrence and saw the accident.He further deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. During the cross-examination of the PWs, nothing could be elicited to raise any doubts regarding the veracity of the claimant’s case and the opposite parties also did not adduce any contrary evidence on the issue.

¶50

15. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants that the cross-objector himself was the bailor for the driver of the offending vehicle and the driver and the cross objector did not appear before the Tribunal and they did not contest the case. In fact the police documents, the FIR, seizure report and the charge sheet were all exhibited before the Tribunal, showing the involvement of the vehicle of the cross-objector and they were never disputed

¶51

Page No.# 8/11

¶52

by any of the opposite parties.

¶53

16. The learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant in MAC Appeal 323 of 2016 has not raised any grounds regarding the alleged fraud and, therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed to raise such issue at this stage.

¶54

17. In view of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the claimant respondents submits that the appellant has not been able to make out a case for interference of this Court in the present appeal.

¶55

18. I have given due consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the pleadings as well as the trial Court records and also the judgments relied upon by the parties.

¶56

19. The instant MAC Appeal arises out of a claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3, who had preferred the MAC Case No. 143 of 2015 as claimants, claiming compensation from the opposite parties for the death of their son/brother Gobinda Basak in a road accident involving the motorcycle having Registration No. AS-18D-0084 in an accident which took place at Gosaibari, Dolgama, PWD Road near the Kali Mandir under Matia Police Station on 24.10.2014.

¶57

20. The case of the claimant was that on the day of the accident, the deceased was going from Matia towards his house on foot, when the motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-18D-0084 coming at very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down from behind.As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately taken to Goalpara Solace Hospital, but due to his serious condition, he was referred to GMCH. But he succumbed to his injuries in the hospital on 27.10.2014. Thereafter, the Matia P.S. Case No. 194/2014 was registered.

¶58

Page No.# 9/11

¶59

21. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle did not contest the case and the case proceeded ex parte against them. However, the insurance company/appellant contested the case.

¶60

22. After hearing the parties, the tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs. 9,13,000/- (nine lakh thirteen thousand) to be realized from the Oriental Insurance Company/Appellant.

¶61

23. The owner of the vehicle/motorcycle bearing Registration No.AS-18D-0084 who was arrayed as respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal did not contest the claim petition. It is seen from the records that the notice on the respondent No. 1/owner of the vehicle was presumed to be served by an order dated 10.04.2015 whereby the tribunal held that the notice on the owner of the vehicle had been sent by a registered post and therefore the notice was presumed to be served.

¶62

24. However, it is the specific contention of the cross objector/vehicle owner that he had not received the notice. The cross objector has preferred the Cross Objection No.2 of 2022, contending that his vehicle bearing Registration No. AS18D-0084 was not involved in the accident at all and that the claimants, in collusion with the police, falsely implicated the said vehicle in the claim proceedings.

¶63

25. Without going into the merit of the case, the grounds raised in the cross objection is taken up for consideration.

¶64

26. The main submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company/appellant is that the entire claim is fraudulent and that the vehicle allegedly insured with the appellant was not even involved in the accident. Fraud is a serious allegation and cannot be inferred merely from the existence

¶65

Page No.# 10/11

¶66

of discrepancies or from the fact that the owner disputes involvement of his vehicle. At the same time, where the evidence demonstrates that a vehicle not involved in an accident has been deliberately introduced into a claim proceeding, the Court cannot shut its eyes to such conduct merely because the legislation is beneficial.The vehicle owner/cross objector in the instant case could not present his case before the Tribunal as he had not received notice of the same.

¶67

27. It is also the specific contention of the appellant that they came to know about the allegation of fraud only when the cross-objection was filed.

¶68

28. It is the view of this Court that the appellant/insurer cannot be made liable merely because there was a valid policy covering the alleged offending vehicle on the relevant date. The foundational fact of involvement of the insured vehicle has to be first established.

¶69

29. In cases of such nature, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Safiq Ahmed (Supra) has directed for setting up of Special Investigating Team (SIT) in all the states to enquire into complaints of suspicious fake claims/petitions.

¶70

30. This Court is therefore of the view that the instant petition needs to be disposed of in terms of the directions passed in the case of Safiq Ahmed(Supra).

¶71

31. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the learned MACT No. 1 Kamrup, (M), Guwahati in M.A.C. Case No. 143 of 2015 is quashed and set aside. The matter is referred to the Special Investigating Team, Assam, constituted as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Safiq Ahmed (Supra), to investigate into the facts and circumstances with regard to the accident which occurred at

¶72

Page No.# 11/11

¶73

Gosaibari, Dolgama, PWD Road, near Kali Mandir, under Matia Police Station.

¶74

32. The Registry shall send back the case records to the learned MACT No. 1 Kamrup, (M), Guwahati and on receipt of the same, the learned Tribunal shall proceed as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Safiq Ahmed (Supra) and make an endeavor to dispose of the claim petition afresh upon receipt of the report of the SIT.

¶75

33. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment and order to the SIT, Assam, for compliance of the directions. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 2nd November, 2026.

¶76

34. The appellant insurance company may be allowed to withdraw the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- which is deposited before the Registry of the Court.

¶77

35. The MAC Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above directions

¶78

JUDGE

¶79

Comparing Assistant

Sukumar Basak v. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumar Basak v. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases