G.P.Mathur, J. - (1.) These appeals have been preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the separate orders and judgment dated 15.4.2002 given in M.A.C.P. Nos. 86 and 87 of 1994. The appellant Sanjai Singh is son of Rajendra Singh and both allege to have received injuries in the same accident and, therefore, both the appeals are being decided by a common order. F.A.F.O. No. 798 of 2002 arising out of M.A.C.P. No. 86 of 1994 (Rajendra Singh v. Vinita Yadav) shall be treated as the leading case.
(2.) The case set-up by the claimant was that at about 10 a.m. on 9.11.93 Rajendra Singh and his son Sanjai Singh were going towards Bulandshahr on a Vicky when they were hit by an Ambassador car which was being driven rashly and negligently. Both the claimants alleged to have received injuries in the accident and they were rushed to a private clinic but the doctor referred them to Delhi where they were treated in Hindu Rao Hospital. The claim petition was contested by the owners of the Ambassador car, namely, Vinita Yadav and Rajesh on the ground that no such accident as alleged took place and the claimants had not received any injury from their car. They further pleaded that the claim petition had been filed on absolutely false grounds. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer of the vehicle) also contested the claim petition. The claim petition was allowed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by the judgment and order dated 15.1.1998 and Rs. 3,55,000 was awarded as compensation to Rajendra Singh and Rs. 1,52,000 to Sanjai Singh. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition.
(3.) Subsequently, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. received information that the claimants had not received injuries in any accident by Ambassador car No. DL 2C-9743 which was owned by Vinita Yadav but had received injuries in an accident of a tractor on which they were travelling. The insurance company, therefore, filed a review petition, which was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. This order was challenged by filing a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36169 of 1998 in this court but the same was rejected on 7.4.1999. Thereafter, the insurance company preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 2087 and 2088 of 2000 before the Apex Court which was decided by the judgment and order dated 4.3.2000 and the judgment is reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh 2000 ACJ 1032 (SC). Paras 15, 16 and 17 of the reports are being reproduced below: (15) Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No court or Tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim. (16) The allegation made by the appellant insurance company, that claimants were not involved in the accident which they described in the claim petition, cannot be brushed aside without further probe into the matter, for, the said allegation has not been specifically denied by the claimants when they were called upon to file objections to the applications for recalling of the awards. The claimants then confined their resistance to the plea that the application for recall is not legally maintainable. Therefore, we strongly feel that the claim must be allowed to be resisted, on the ground of fraud now alleged by the insurance company. If we fail to afford to the insurance company an opportunity to substantiate its contentions it might certainly lead to a serious miscarriage of justice. (17) In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders and quash the awards passed by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants. We direct the Claims Tribunal to consider the claims put forth by the claimants afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to the appellant insurance company to substantiate its allegations. Opportunity must be afforded to the claimants also to rebut the allegations.;