DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant. The respondents, though served, remain unrepresented. The appellant is the insurer, who seeks to question the liability fastened on the appellant by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

(2.) THE background to the case is as follows:

(3.) GIVEN the sequence of events, it is difficult to accept that notwithstanding that the criminal case has been closed in so far as the accident was concerned, the claimant -respondents have thought it fit to reconstruct the accident through the medium of PW.2 and the Tribunal having accepted the same, is highly irregular and cannot be accepted as having established a claim for compensation as against the vehicle, which is conveniently insured with the present appellants. Respondent no. 3, the owner of the vehicle did not suffer any loss, who would apparently gain if there was collusion between the claimants and himself. Therefore, if it was a situation where the case had been reopened by the Police and on investigation, there was a fresh material evidence that was gathered, which lead to the conclusion that it was the insured vehicle which was actually involved in the accident, there was no difficulty in affirming the judgment of the Tribunal. But when the circumstances are shown to be otherwise, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it is a highly suspicious claim and hence, the Tribunal ought not to have granted the relief.