UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ZUGULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is intended to assail judgment and award passed by the Learned Member, MACT, Aizawl on 21.11.2002 (referred Case No. 96/2000 of the Tribunal).

(2.) THE petitioner United Insurance Co. Ltd., states that Zugula, respondent No. 1/claimant filed claim petition stating, that an accident took place on 18.1.1999 involving vehicle bearing registration No. MZ -01/4846, a public carrier, resulting in death of his wife Hawipari alias Ianghawihi and after hearing the parties learned MACT, vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2002, passed an award of Rs. 3,73,880 (Rupees three lakhs seventy three thousand eight hundred eighty) in favour of the claimant/respondent. That the claimant practiced fraud upon the Tribunal by concealing the fact that O/C 72 RCC(GREF), already awarded a compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 amounting to Rs. 1,42,276 (Rupees one lakh forty two thousand two hundred seventy six) in connection with the death of his wife. That the claimant has given different names and addresses to the GREF and the 'tribunal in order to gain illegally although as per provision of the Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, he is entitled to claim compensation under either of the acts and not under both. That an amount of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) has already been paid by the respondent/claimant by the petitioner on the strength of the order of the Tribunal dated 21.11.2002. Accordingly the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot be enforced against the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing of both sides. The original case records of MACT was called for and perused. It will be seen that all throughout the respondent No. 1/claimant put his thumb impression. Therefore, his submission that he is an illiterate person and had no knowledge of law and acted only on the direction given either by advisor or lawyer has substance. Moreover, the writ petitioner save and except making the statements on oath adduced no other evidence/materials to show that the respondent/claimant practiced fraud.