In accident claim If the claimant Cheated then order can be reversed by Tribunal: GUJARAT HC

The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that if a party before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in this case the claimant, commits fraud against the tribunal, the tribunal has the authority to revoke the order by which relief was granted.

Justice Gita Gopi observed, "The petition for review would be granted because it fell under Order 47(1) of the CPC, as the error was apparent on the face of the record. Even in the absence of fraud allegations from the driver and owner, the Tribunal had the authority to rescind its own order."

The present application was filed by the Insurance Company in opposition to the order of the Tribunal rejecting its petition for review, which sought recall of the award in favour of the claimant on the grounds that the claimant was uninsured on the date of the accident and had forged the insurance document.

The High Court observed that the Tribunal had denied the application for review because the Insurance Company had not even submitted a written response to the claim petition. In addition, the contested document was not presented as evidence in the case, so the review petition was denied.

It ordered the Claims Tribunal to reconsider the claim petition from the evidence stage forward. It cited Anita v. Rambilas to reiterate: "If it is proven that one of the parties committed fraud on the court, then and only then is a section 151 review petition maintainable."

In United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Rajendra Singh, it was determined that the remedy to move for recalling the order based on newly discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree cannot be precluded."

No court or tribunal can be deemed incapable of revoking its own order if it is convinced that the order was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation of such a magnitude as to affect the claim's very foundation."

In light of Rule 1 of Order 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to "Application for Review of a Judgment," Justice Gopi ruled that the instant review application would survive despite the four-year delay. It was explained that the application for delay condonation had been granted and that the issue of delay would not arise at this stage.

The Court noted that the Jeep was not insured with the Insurance Company on the date of the accident, and as a result, the Petitioner was exempt from satisfying the award. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal, and the compensation was ordered to be placed in a Fixed Deposit.

D.D:18-07-2022

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v/s THAKOR KANAJI VIRAJI