# M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 779
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-08-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 715 of 2008
- **Bench:** Bharti Sapru
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-v-motor-accident-claims-tribunal-and-others-41190
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Article
226Rejection
of
recall
application
of
Insurance Company-on the ground of
fraud-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
rejected-due to want of provision of
review-held-illegal-matter remitted back
to decide the allegations of fraud-till the
decision, there should be no payment of
compensation-fraud vitiate everythingtechnical objection either before the
Tribunal or the before High Court-cannot
be allowed.

Held: Para 12:

Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the material
on record, I am of the opinion that once
an application is moved alleging fraud
against
the
claimants
then
it
was
bounden
duty
of
the
tribunal
to
reconsider the matter and examine
whether there was a fraud involved in
the matter or not.
Case law discussed:
(2000) 2 LRI 12.

## Text

3 All] M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and others
779

14. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court does not find any merit in the writ
petition.

The writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BHARTI SAPRU, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 715 of 2008

M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

...Petitioner
Versus
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baghpat
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. Manish Goyal.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. Santosh Kumar Singh

Constitution
of
India-Article
226Rejection
of
recall
application
of
Insurance Company-on the ground of
fraud-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
rejected-due to want of provision of
review-held-illegal-matter remitted back
to decide the allegations of fraud-till the
decision, there should be no payment of
compensation-fraud vitiate everythingtechnical objection either before the
Tribunal or the before High Court-cannot
be allowed.

Held: Para 12:

Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the material
on record, I am of the opinion that once
an application is moved alleging fraud
against
the
claimants
then
it
was
bounden
duty
of
the
tribunal
to
reconsider the matter and examine
whether there was a fraud involved in
the matter or not.
Case law discussed:
(2000) 2 LRI 12.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bharti Sapru, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Goyal learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Santosh
Kumar Singh, who has appeared on
behalf of the respondents no. 2 to 4.

2. This petition has been filed by the
petitioner Insurance Company seeking a
direction to set aside the judgement and
order dated 31.5.2008 passed by the
respondent no.1 in Misc. Case no. 5 of
2007 arising out of MAC no. 61 of 2004.
The second prayer is that order or
direction may also be issued setting aside
the
judgement
and
award
dated
23.09.2006 passed by the respondent no.
1 in MAC no. 61 of 2004 and the third
prayer is that the respondent no. 1 be
restrained from releasing the amount of
compensation along with interest in
favour of the respondents no.2 to 4 on the
basis of the judgement and award dated
23.09.2006.

3. The facts of the case are that a
claim
petition
was
filed
by
the
respondents alleging that an accident took
place on 13.04.2004 when the deceased
was going on a Motor Cycle no. UP 14J8083 from Baghpat to his village along
with Jai Pal Singh, the Motor Cycle was
hit by car no. DL-1CF 2901 and on
account of the accident , one person died
and Jai Pal Singh received injuries.

4. A claim for compensation was
made and an award was passed on
23.09.2006 finally by which Rs.5,19,616
was allowed in favour of the claimant-
780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
respondents along with interest at the rate
of 6% p.a..

5. After the award was delivered, the
petitioner Insurance Company received a
complaint from one Har Pal Singh
resident of the village Bamnoli P.S.
Deoghat District Baghpat to the effect that
claim petition had been filed fraudulently
on the basis of false representation against
the car in collusion with its owner and in
fact no accident had taken place with the
car
that
had
been-insured
by
the
petitioner.

6. It is the petitioner's case that upon
receiving the complaint, the petitioner
engaged an independent investigating
agency, which established that fraud was
committed upon the petitioner by raising
claim in collusion with the owner of the
car.

7. In fact it was revealed from the
chargesheet filed by the police during the
investigation that the car that was insured
belonged to respondent no. 5, was not
even involved in the accident, which took
place on 13.04.2004.

8. Upon receiving the report from
the investigating agency, the petitioner
Insurance Company moved an application
for recall of the award on the ground
charge sheet filed by the award had been
obtained by the claimants on the basis of
misrepresentation
and
fraud.
The
petitioner Insurance Company also filed
an application for condonation of delay
along with the said application. It is this
application, which had been rejected by
the order dated 31.05.2008.

9. Learned counsel for the
respondents claimants has appeared and
opposed this writ petition saying that the
present writ petition under article 227 of
the
Constitution
of
India
is
not
maintainable because firstly under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 there is no
power to review or recall of award passed
under section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act,
it is open to the petitioner Insurance
Company to file an appeal under section
173 of the Act and therefore also this writ
petition is not maintainable.

10. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has however argued that even
though there may be no provision to
review the award under the Motor
Vehicles Act, every Court has the power
to review or recall inherently the order or
award, which had been obtained by a
party
either
by
fraud
or
misrepresentation.

11. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied on a decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of United
Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Rajendra
Singh & ors. reported in (2000) 2 LRI 12
in which an identical situation had arisen
and the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined
that in case of fraud the Insurance
Company was justified in moving the
High Court in writ jurisdiction. This
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court was
also placed before the tribunal while
hearing the claim petition.

12. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
material on record, I am of the opinion
that once an application is moved alleging
fraud against the claimants then it was
bounden duty of the tribunal to reconsider
the matter and examine whether there was
a fraud involved in the matter or not.
3 All] Laxmi Shankar Bajpai V. Addl. Director of Education (Secondary) and others
781

13. In the present case, the tribunal
has simply thrown out the matter on the
ground of the delay. It is alleged that the
entire money has already been deposited
in the court below.

14. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, I remand the matter to the
tribunal for reconsideration afresh with
regard to the matter relating to fraud. In
pursuance of the award, the money which
had been deposited before the tribunal
will not be released in favour of the
claimant-respondents, until the tribunal
decides the application for recall afresh as
moved by the petitioner. The claimantrespondents shall also be given every
opportunity of hearing in establishing
their case. The matter on remand will be
heard by the tribunal expeditiously, if
possible, within a period of three months
from the date of presentation of a certified
copy of this order being placed before it.
The order dated 31.05.2008 passed by
respondent no. 1 in Misc. case no. 5 of
2007 is set aside.

15. The writ petition is disposed of
as above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37468 of 2008

Laxmi Shankar Bajpai
...Petitioner
Versus
Additional
Director
of
Education
(Secondary) and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.P. Mishra
Sri Indra Raj Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Kr. R.C. Singh
Sri Shyam Singh Sengar
Sri Arun Kumar Singh
Sri Neeraj Tiwari

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226Appointment of Principal by Transferduly selection through selection boardchallenged by an officiating principal-in
absence of regular selected candidate
held-No right to continue after joining of
selected candidate-nor has right to resist
the
posting-petition
misconceiveddismissed.

Held: Para 5 & 7

Admittedly, the petitioner was officiating
as a principal in the college. He is not the
regular principal and was acting as an
officiating principal in the absence of the
appointment of any permanent principal.
Dr.
Ajai
Pal
Singh
was
appointed
principal by way of selection by the
Board and was regular principal in the
CPKU
Inter
College,
Moosa
Nagar,
Kanpur Dehat and had a right to claim
for the transfer. His transfer has been
made against the vacancy existed in
Gangadeen Gaurishankar Inter College
Kanpur Nagar on the recommendation of
the Committee of Management of both
the colleges. Therefore the transfer of
Dr. Ajai Pal Singh cannot be said to be
illegal by any means. Moreover, the
petitioner being an officiating principal
cannot challenge the transfer of a
permanent principal and cannot claim to
be retained in the college as officiating
principal.

In the present case, the petitioner is not
a selected candidate on the post of
principal and was only officiating on the
post of principal in the absence of any
permanent principal and, therefore, had
no right to challege the transfer of the
respondent no.6 Dr. Ajai Pal Singh.
Case law discussed:
(2007) 3 UBLBEC, 2497.