NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BABLOO PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN M. C. C. No. 302 of 1996 this Court passed an order and directed the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry whether one Babloo Pal, who filed claim petition, is not the son of the deceased and his sister Ramko has impersonated herself as the daughter of deceased Patiram, named Sukhi. This court further directed to enquire whether these claimants have succeeded in receiving the interim compensation.

(2.) A petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed in the name of Babloo Pal and Sukhi. The Tribunal allowed the application. The appeal against the award was dismissed by this Court. Subsequently, the daughter of the deceased moved an application before the Claims Tribunal that she is the daughter of deceased and claimants have impersonated themselves and received the claim. Therefore, this Court in a review petition filed by insurance company directed an inquiry and it also ordered that since the allegations have been made against the counsel of the claimants, the Tribunal was directed to enquire into that aspect also. The court further ordered that on completion of inquiry if the allegations made in the application are found to be correct then real daughter alone would be entitled to the compensation allowed by the Tribunal. It was further ordered that the Tribunal shall report the matter to the Registrar of this Court and if the fraud is found established, it shall direct prosecution of the claimants.

(3.) AFTER this order of enquiry was passed, an application was filed by the insurance company for modification of the order passed in M. C. C. No. 302 of 1996. The Claims Tribunal also intimated the court that counsel for claimants Mr. N. D. Singhal is creating obstructions in smooth functioning of the inquiry. On 20. 1. 1997 Mr. N. D. Singhal made a statement in this Court that he shall be fully cooperating in the inquiry and this Court directed for completion of the inquiry within one month. On going through the inquiry proceedings it is apparent that the claimants and their counsel Mr. N. D. Singhal had created obstructions in the inquiry and every effort was made to delay the proceedings, which is reflected from the order-sheets. On the date which was fixed for holding inquiry and the witnesses were present in the court, Mr. N. D. Singhal, Advocate interfered with the inquiry and before the evidence could be recorded, Mr. N. D. Singhal, Advocate, appeared in the court and stated that the evidence of Babloo Pal and Sukhi cannot be recorded and he had taken away the witnesses from the court room. In spite of directions of the court Mr. N. D. Singhal tampered with the witnesses. It is not a part of duty of an advocate to tamper with the witnesses. Tampering with the witness is a very serious offence. The inquiry was being conducted on the direction of this Court. In order to avoid the inquiry an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of case was filed before the District Judge. The District Judge rejected the application by holding that the inquiry is being conducted by the Claims Tribunal on the orders of High Court. The respondents instead of moving necessary application in this case for direction, filed a writ petition levying uncalled for allegation against the Presiding Officer conducting the inquiry and created maximum hurdles in completion of the inquiry. The claimants, namely, Babloo Pal and so-called Sukhi tried their best to delay the inquiry. From the record it is apparent that on every date the claimants and their counsel made every effort to avoid their presence in court, which is apparent from order-sheet dated 29. 1. 1997. The counsel appeared at 1 o'clock in the afternoon and did not press the application. Then on 30. 1. 1997 issues were framed. Then an application under Section 151, read with Order XIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the counsel for the claimants. The case was fixed for recording evidence of complainant on 5. 2. 1997. However, on 5. 2. 1997 again an objection was raised by the claimants in respect of issues. This application was rejected. Then another application was moved by them and by moving one application or another the case was fixed at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. The counsel for complainant had produced the witnesses but the time was sought by the claimants on that date, as the counsel was not available, the case was fixed for 7. 2. 1997. On 7. 2. 1997 complainant Sukhi, D/o deceased Patiram was examined and her witnesses were also examined. However, other witnesses of complainant were not examined. The case was fixed for 15. 2. 97. An application was again moved by the counsel for claimants that photographs be exhibited without the negatives. This prayer was rejected and witnesses of complainant were examined. The case was fixed for recording evidence of the claimants but evidence could not be recorded, as the counsel for claimants did not appear and it was intimated that the counsel was busy before the Additional Collector. The counsel chose to appear before Additional Collector in order to delay the proceedings. The Tribunal was not obliged to adjourn hearing on the ground that counsel was busy in some revenue court subordinate to civil court. The act of the claimants demonstrates that there was total lack of cooperation by them. Ultimately, evidence could be recorded on 21. 2. 1997 and the case was fixed for arguments on 24. 2. 97, but on 24. 2. 1997 another application was moved for adjournment and it was submitted by the claimants that they are moving the High Court for extension of 15 days' time. The prayer was, rejected and the case was fixed for orders on 25. 2. 1997. Subsequently, the orders were passed.