NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY Vs. DHAPPU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the insurer, against the judgment and award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur dated 8.11.2001, passed in claim case No. 6/2000, decreeing the claim for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 against the defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4.

(2.) THE appeal was filed on 4.2.2002, it came up for admission on 4.4.2002, and was admitted, and on stay application, notices were ordered to be issued. When summons were sent, the summons of defendant No. 3 before the learned Trial Court, who was impleaded as a respondent No. 11 before this Court, were received unserved, with the report, that no such person exists at the address given in the summons, which was the address as given by the claimants in the learned Trial Court.

(3.) SINCE , it had been sitting in Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, arising out of motor accident cases, for quite some time, and in that process, have come across many such incidents of fraud, viz., in one case, even before issuance of the summons by the Claims Tribunal, a Vakalatnama happened to be filed on behalf of the owner. Thereafter, the Counsel never appeared, and the claim was decreed, wherein insurance company was exonerated. Then the owner filed appeal before this Court, contending that he was never served with any summons, he never appeared, and never engaged any Counsel, that matter was admitted by me. Likewise, another incident also came to be noticed, of the same nature, where the owner came with a story, about the Counsel having obtained Vakalatnama for the purpose of release of the vehicle from the Criminal Court, and that Vakalatnama was used by being filed in the Claims Tribunal, in collusion with the claimant, without his instructions, and decree had been passed against him, on account of exoneration of the insurance company. Today itself again, I came across yet another case, being S.B.C.M.A. No. 802/2004, New India Assurance Co. v. Rukmani Bai and Ors. in that case the claim was filed in the year 1998, and was decreed on 28.11.2003, wherein the owner was represented by an advocate, but then, when the summons of the appeal were sent, the summons of the owner were returned, with the report, about owner having died some 10 -12 years ago. Similar many incidents had come to my notice, therefore, keeping in mind that experience, on receiving the application Under Order 5 Rule 201 got suspicious, and entertained adoubt, that this might also be a case of a nature similar to those ones, and therefore, I wanted to make sure, as to how the present respondent No. 11 was served in the Trial Court, and therefore, on 14.12.2004, it was ordered on this application, that the record of the learned Trial Court be requisitioned, and the application shall be considered thereafter. Accordingly, the record was requisitioned and the same has been received.