NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. ASHWIN VRAJLAL RAJGOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.Dakshesh Mehta, learned Counsel appears for the petitioner. Mr.Mehul S.Shah, learned Counsel appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is reported that `Rule' on respondent No.3, the driver of the vehicle, is not served, `Rule' is served on respondent Nos.4 and 5. Ms.Lilu K.Bhaya, learned Counsel appears for respondent No.6. We have heard the parties.

(2.) In a Claim Petition, the claimants submitted an application to the Court that an interim award be made in their favour under Section-163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). The Court, accordingly, heard the parties and made an order against the Insurance Company, directing it to deposit a sum of Rs.3,86,000/-. After some time, the present petitioner- Insurance Company came to know that the Cover Note, on which reliance was placed, was forged, certain interpolations were made in it and on the strength of such interpolations, liability of the Company was sought to be held. They, accordingly, submitted an application for review. The application for review came to be rejected by the said Claims Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company is before this Court.

(3.) Mr.Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 581, submits that in a case of fraud, specially, when the allegations are that the claimants are playing fraud and the facts came to the notice of the Insurance Company subsequent to the passing of the first order, the Court, which had passed the first order, cannot close its eyes to the facts and it would not be powerless in recalling its first order if the fraud is established.