Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 20th November, 2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the findings have been recorded against the petitioner and the Tribunal has directed summoning of the petitioner for inquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner, an Advocate, represented one Harak Lal in a petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act').
(2.) DURING the pendency of the petition, an application came to be filed by the insurer - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, inter alia, contending that the claimant had received a sum of Rs. 1,61,724 for the damage to the Jeep by filing Complaint No. 2/1998 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwara ('District Forum'); or account of receipt of cheque towards compensation, the claim petition was not maintainable and it was prayed that as the claimant has suppressed the fact and has filed the petition seeking compensation, the claimant be punished. The application was replied on behalf of claimant - Harak Lal and it was contended that the Jeep was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited; claim was raised with the Insurance Company, which was rejected by it, therefore, complaint was made, which was accepted by the District Forum on 18th November, 1997 and direction was given to pay a sum of Rs. 1,14,000 along with interest @ 18% per annum, against which, an appeal was pending before the State Commission; the claim of the petitioner was for a sum of Rs. 2,57,840, however, only a sum of Rs. 1,14,000 has been awarded and the order of the District Forum was not final; the application before the Tribunal was for the negligence of the vehicle involved and the dispute before the District Forum was pertaining to contract between the applicant and his Insurance Company and applicant was not seeking to get compensation more than loss suffered by him.
(3.) THE Tribunal after hearing the parties by its impugned order dated 20th November, 2000, inter alia, observed and directed as under: "There are two questions to be answered in this matter. First, whether this claim petition is maintainable in the above mentioned facts and circumstances. Secondly, what are the consequences of supplying false information, declaration and making double claim in the matter? Adjudication for claim for damages to the property i.e. jeep (on account of the said accident) against the Insurance Company, etc. is the crux of the matter. The applicant could choose only one Forum. In such matter he cannot file claim petitions before more than one forum. It is altogether different and irrelevant thing how much of the claim is accepted or denied after the full adjudication. Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'MV Act') provides option regarding claims for compensation in motor accident cases in certain cases. In other words if the claimant injured/deceased is/was a unknown who met with a motor vehicle accident, he can file his claim before the MACT (Tribunal) or before the Workmen's Compensation Authority but not before the both. Similarly the very idea and object behind column Nos. 27(ii) and 28 is to get complete information so as to cheque and thwart the double claim. Thus, the reply of the applicant side is baseless and is, therefore, unacceptable. Consequently, this claim petition is not maintainable and is, therefore, dismissed. The applicant in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances appears to have prima facie committed offences punishable under Sections 177, 199, 200, 193, 209 and 420/54 of I.P.C. But before proceeding further, it is expedient to make an enquiry under Section 340 of I.P.C. read with Section 195(1), Cr.P.C. and record statement of all the concerned. It is unfortunate that Mr. Dinesh Somani, Advocate, learned Counsel for the applicant, was in know of all the facts as he was Counsel for the applicant in both the matters from the very inception of the proceedings and still he allowed his party to make false information/declaration and concealed the whole matter from the Tribunal. It is apparently a matter of violation of professional ethics if something not more serious than that. It is further unfortunate that he has tried to justify it. Office is directed to register a criminal miscellaneous file for inquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and enclose the record of both the matters along with it. Presently, the applicant and his Counsel Mr. Dinesh Somani be summoned for evidence in the matter. The matter be posted to 5th December, 2002 for inquiry. Attested photo copy of this order sheet shall be enclosed with the file of the inquiry.";