: Madras High Court has set aside the awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Court of Small Causes) here to family members of two accident victims and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 each on them for filing bogus claims.
"On evaluation of the pleadings and evidence, this court is of the view that bogus claims have been made by the claimants and the same ought to have been rejected by the Tribunal," Justice S Manikumar said on June 17 last.
Going through all records and the report of C Vijayakumar, Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, he said court felt the claimants, who played a fraud on the court are not entitled to any equitable relief.The Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on United India Insurance Company, Royapettah branch, by not appreciating the evidence in proper perspective, the judge added.
He set aside the judgment and decrees made by the Tribunal on August 30, 2011, allowed the appeal from the insurance company and dismissed the appeals from the victims' family to enhance the award amounts.
The judge also permitted the insurance company to withdraw the award money deposited in favour of the claimants by making necessary applications before the Claims Tribunal.
The case was there was a collision between a motorbike and autorikshaw, resulting in deaths of the bike and pillion rider at Maraimalai Nagar on July 9, 2005. Families of the victims filed separate claims before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which despite objection and charge that the claims are bogus, awarded Rs 7.28 lakh and Rs 7.32 lakh to the claimants.
Contending that the award money was too low, the claimants filed appeals. The insurance company also filed an appeal challenging the award. It contended it was a hit and run case and the autorikshaw was not at all involved in it.
Relying on the medical report, it argued that the tyre of the autorikshaw could not have caused the death of the bike rider. It also alleged that the inspector who investigated the case, had colluded with the claimants and implicated the auto and fabricated evidence.
Finding force in the submissions of the insurance firm, Justice Manikumar dismissed claimants' appeals and allowed the appeals from the insurance company.
He also pulled up the Tribunal for not listening to the submissions of the insurance company. After going through the records and evidence, the judge found the claims were bogus, filed with the active connivance of the investigating officer of the accident case for monetary gain.
