ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KULBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four revision petitions have been preferred by the petitioner insurance company against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The award was rendered in four claim petitions arising out of the same accident. The case of the claimants is that the accident in question had taken place on 25.10.1998 when the petitioner Kulbir Singh (claimant in M.A.C.T. Case No. 62 of 1999) along with his wife, Paramjit Kaur (claimant in M.A.C.T. Case No. 65 of 1999) and his minor sons, Raman Deep Singh and Davinder Deep Singh (claimants in M.A.C.T. Case No. 65 of 1999) and friends, Balbir Kumar (claimant in M.A.C.T. Case No. 63 of 1999) and Vijay Kumar were going in Maruti car No. PID 7365 when they were hit by truck No. HR 38-BG 5548 being driven rashly and negligently by Jaswant Singh, driver, resulting in injuries to the claimants. Kulbir Singh received injuries on the hip joint, right thigh, ribs, forehead and right knee, Balbir Kumar received injuries including breaking of two teeth, deep cuts on the nose, fracture of nose bone and disfigurement of face, Raman Deep received injuries on his left eye and cuts on the head above the forehead, Paramjit Kaur received fracture of nose bone, deep cut on the right eyebrow, cut on lips, injuries in jaws and knees. They were carried to Sacred Heart Hospital at Jalandhar and received treatment at the hospital. 1.1. The claims were contested. 1.2. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded following amounts:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner insurance company submitted that though appeal was not maintainable, a revision could be preferred. He also submitted that even cases where the insurer had no right to contest, under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and right to contest was confined to grounds mentioned in section 149 (2), the plea of fraud could be taken. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a Full Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Milan Rani Saha v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 103 (Gauhati), wherein it was held that power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution was not taken away. Reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, 2000 ACJ 1032 (SC). Reference was also made to a Division Bench judgment of this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balbir Kaur, 2001 ACJ 555 (P&H), wherein it was observed that if an award is highly excessive, unconscionable or causing grave injustice to the insurance company, this court could be approached under Article 227. He has relied on decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC), wherein it was observed as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, fraud comprised of production of bills, Exhs. AA-1 to AA-36 which bills were exhibited subject to objection. He submitted that exhibition of the said documents did not mean that the said documents were proved. He also submitted that the shop from which the bills were issued did not exist. He referred to evidence of RW 1 Pardip Kumar, District Drugs Inspector to the effect that no drug licence had been issued to Dash- mesh Medical Hall, Kahlon Medical Hall and Sharma Medical Agency who had issued the bills. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Tribunal ignored this objection by observing that a patient will not know whether a chemist was having a valid licence or not and the bills could not be held to be forged or fabricated on that ground.