Dismissed

Ramphal v. Surender and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Mar 2014FAO/213/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order rejecting a false claim for accident compensation. The court affirmed the Tribunal's finding of collusion between the appellant and truck owners due to irregularities and delayed FIR evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed with nominal costs already imposed by the Tribunal.

Ramphal Vs Surender and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO No.213 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.213 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:26.03.2014

Ramphal

.... Appellant

versus

Surender & others

.... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

¶11

Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Naveen Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the Insurance Company.

¶14

¶15

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶18

Anita Chaudhry, J.(Oral)

¶19

This appeal has been preferred by the claimant, whose claim petition was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat vide award dated 19.09.2007. While dismissing the petition, the Tribunal imposed costs of Rs.3,000/- upon the appellant. Liberty was given to the insurance company to get a case registered against the claimant for raising a false claim.

¶20

The appellant is Head Constable with Haryana Police and was posted at Kharkhoda at the relevant time. His case was that on 21.04.2004, he along with Constable Manjit Singh were on patrol duty. At about 8.00 pm they were going on a motorcycle and were near village Anandpur Jharot ahead of drain No.8 when the offending

¶21

Bura Sonia 2014.04.03 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶22

FAO No.213 of 2008

¶23

-2-

¶24

vehicle came from Sonepat side and struck against the motorcycle due to which both of them fell on the road and sustained injuries. The matter was reported to the police after 5 days of the accident.

¶25

The claimant had pleaded that he got medically examined at General Hospital, Kharkhoda and then was taken to Aneja Hospital, Sonepat and he spent Rs.2.50 lacs on his treatment.

¶26

The Tribunal dismissed the petition noticing certain facts. The truck driver had lodged a claim with respect to the damage to his truck and had pleaded that the accident occurred while avoiding collision with neel gai and he had hit a tractor trolley. The Tribunal noted that no reasonable explanation had been given regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. It doubted the presence of Manjit Singh. It was also noticed that claimant confronted the official of Insurance Company with some photographs of the spot. The Tribunal noted that this had exposed the collusion between the claimant and the owner and the driver of the truck. Para 26 of the award reads as under:

¶27

“ It is well known saying that man may tell lie but circumstances not. Another truth is that falsehood has no legs to stand with. When there is any collusion between two parties in order to cheat the other, one or the other mistake is committed, which exposes the collusion. This is also evidence in the present case petitioner himself exposed that collusion between him and respondents No.1 and 2, when he confronted photographs Mark PX and Mark PY to RW2 Sh. Vinod Kumar, an official of the insurance company suggesting that those photographs were of the spot of accident. As per evidence on file, accident took place on 21.04.2004. FIR was lodged on 25.04.2004. Motor cycle was

¶28

Bura Sonia 2014.04.03 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶29

FAO No.213 of 2008

¶30

-3-

¶31

produced in the police station and then taken into possession on 04.05.2004 as per PW-3. The truck was taken into possession by the police on 13.11.2004 as per challan Ex.P52. Then how could the photographs Mark PX and PY were taken from the spot and by whom. By way of these photographs, motorcycle HR-10-D-5966 is shown to be lying on the road near truck No.HR-46-A-3555. It is not explained that who took those photographs and how those photographs could come in evidence, when none of the vehicles were recovered from the spot. In the circumstances of the case, it is quite evident that after parking the truck near the road, the motorcycle was made to lie near the said truck and then the photographs were taken. These photographs have caused the final death blow to the claim of the petitioner and duly exposed falsity of his claim and also his collusion with respondents No.1 & 2 in active connivance with the police, who obliged him being his colleagues. The result of police investigation is absolutely not binding on this tribunal.”

¶32

The contention made on behalf of the appellant is that the injured was not in a position to get his statement recorded and the claim should not have been dismissed solely on account of delayed FIR as the matter was investigated by the police and challan was filed. It was urged that the Tribunal had wrongly rejected the petition relying upon the version given by the truck driver, which was based on distorted facts with a view to claim compensation. It was urged that there was an admission in the written statement that the accident had occurred and the contents of the claim form submitted by the owner of the truck cannot be adversely used against him and the driver was

¶33

Bura Sonia 2014.04.03 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶34

FAO No.213 of 2008

¶35

-4-

¶36

facing trial and fact was established that the accident had occurred.

¶37

As against it, the argument of the respondents was that the accident had occurred on 21.04.2004 and the injured was a Head Constable well aware of the legal procedure and the injured was conscious. There is no explanation for not making a report. It was urged that invariably ruqqa is sent from the hospital but there is no evidence. It was urged that Manjit Singh, Constable was in the hospital along with Ramphal and he could have lodged the report and the fact is that the intervening period had been spent in looking for a convenient vehicle and the collusion can be seen from the fact that after the seven months of accident and after the arrest of the driver, some photographs were taken to show that the motorcycle and the truck were at the site of the accident. It was urged that it was not a case of the claimant that the truck remained on the spot till the police arrived. It was urged that the FIR had been lodged after 5 days of the accident and the motorcycle and the truck were not at the site of accident and unbelievable story was placed before the Tribunal, which was rejected as it was based upon falsehood.

¶38

I have gone through the judgment and the reasons recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had brought up certain glaring facts, which clearly show the falsity of the claim. The facts show collusion between the claimant and the owner and the driver of the truck. The claimant's anxiety in fact made him blunder and exposed him when he brought some photographs on record and confronted the official of the insurance company suggesting that photographs mark PX and PY relates to the accident. In those photographs the motorcycle was shown lying on the road near the truck. The driver of the truck

¶39

Bura Sonia 2014.04.03 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶40

FAO No.213 of 2008

¶41

-5-

¶42

was arrested after 7 months of the accident. The truck could not have remained on the spot even till the FIR had been lodged.

¶43

Ordinarily, a layman would not know that he has to approach the police after the accident. The claimant was a Head Constable, well versed with law. He was expected to report the matter to the police at the earliest. The injuries sustained by him were not very serious and the report could have been lodged on the same day. It had come in evidence that Constable Manjit Singh was attending his duty regularly after the accident but he did not inform his superiors. All the circumstances went against the claimant leading to dismissal of the claim petition. The Tribunal had passed a detailed order. There is no error committed.

¶44

There is no reason to differ. There can be no second view on falsity. The claimant had made an attempt to misuse the process of law and had lodged a false case. The Tribunal had let off the claimant by imposing nominal costs. The appeal is dismissed.

¶45

(Anita Chaudhry) Judge

¶46

26.03.2014 sonia

¶47

Bura Sonia 2014.04.03 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Ramphal v. Surender and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramphal v. Surender and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Indu and Ors. Vs Ramphal and Ors.

(O&M) Smt Gurbeant Kaur and Another Vs Parmod Kumar and Others

Vipin Guptta @ Aman Mahajan and Ors. Vs Parshotam Singh and Ors.

Prem Parkash and Ors. Vs Ravinder Kumar and Ors.

Seema Sharma Alias Kanika and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sonia and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.