Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs National Insurance Company Ltd on 12 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010010772018
2025:GAU-AS:10681
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./437/2018
SMTI CHUTO GAUR AND 3 ORS
W/O LATE PARASURAM GAUR ,
RESIDENT OF LAHOWAL RAILWAY GATE ,TINIALI RAILWAY QTR. NO. B-
2 ,P.O. AND P.S. LAHOWAL ,DIST. DIBRUGARH , ASSAM ,PIN 786001.
2: MISS NIMA GAUR
D/O LATE PARASURAM GAUR
RESIDENT OF LAHOWAL RAILWAY GATE
TINIALI RAILWAY QTR. NO. B-2
P.O. AND P.S. LAHOWAL
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN 786001.
3: SRI RAJESH GAUR
S/O LATE PARASURAM GAUR
RESIDENT OF LAHOWAL RAILWAY GATE
TINIALI RAILWAY QTR. NO. B-2
P.O. AND P.S. LAHOWAL
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN 786001
VERSUS
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
G.S .ROAD ,BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI -781005 ,IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP
(M) ,ASSAM
2:MISS PINKY GAUR
D/O LATE PARASURAM GAUR
RESIDENT OF LAHOWAL RAILWAY GATE
Page No.# 2/11
TINIALI RAILWAY QTR. NO. B-2
P.O. AND P.S. LAHOWAL
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN 786001.
3:MD ABDUL MATIN
S/O LATE ABDUL WAHAB
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAULKHOWA
P.S. DIBRUGARH
IN THE DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN.786001.
(DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE )
4:MD MUZZAMEL RAHIM
S/O FAROOQ ROHHIM
RESIDENT OF VILL. KHALIAMARI
JAIL ROAD
P.O. AND P.S. DIBRUGARH IN THE DIST. OF DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN. 786001.(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Y S MANNAN, MR. K R BORA,MS. M BHATTACHARYYA
Advocate for the Respondent : MS. R D MOZUMDAR (R1), MR. DEBABRAT CHUTIA (R2,
R4),MS. C MOZUMDAR (R1),MR. S P SHARMA (R1)
BEFORE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Advocates
For the Appellant : Mr. Y.S Mannan
For the Insurance
Company/ Respondent No.1 : Ms. R.D Mozumdar
Date of Hearing : 12.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 12.08.2025
Page No.# 3/11
JUDGMENT & ORDER
The present appeal under 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been
preferred by the appellants against the Judgment dated 11.10.2017 passed in
MISC Case No. 1/2016 arising out of MAC Case No. 1639/2013 passed by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 3 (MACT No.3 for short), reviewing the
Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2015 passed in MAC Case No. 1639/2013.
2. I have learned counsel, Mr. Y.S Mannan for the appellant as well as learned
counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.1, Ms. R.D Mozumdar.
3. The case of the appellant is that on 01.06.2013 at about 7:00 PM when the
deceased late Parasuram Gaur was proceeding from Bokul towards his home on
foot, and on reaching National Highway No. 37, near Railway Gate Tiniali, the
offending vehicle Indigo with R/No. AS-06-H/0237 coming from the same
direction and being driven in rash and negligent manner knocked him down
from the back side causing grievous injuries on his body which ultimately
resulted in his death. In this regard, a case was registered being Lahuwal P.S.
Case No. 90/2013 under Sections 279/304(A) I.P.C. The claimants/appellants
filed claim petition claiming an amount of Rs 40,00,000/- for causing the death
of late Parasuram Gaur against the owner, driver of the offending vehicle and
the National Insurance Company Limited.
4. It is further stated that the owner and driver of the vehicle did not contest
the case and therefore, the tribunal proceeded ex-parte against them. The
insurer/National Insurance Company Limited contested the case and the learned
MACT No. 3 Kamrup (M), Guwahati vide Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2015
awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 22,45,739/- only with interest @ 6%
p.a from the date of filing from the Claim Petition till realization of the amount
to be paid by the National Insurance Company Limited.
Page No.# 4/11
5. Thereafter, the National Insurance Company/respondent No. 1 filed an
application under Section 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure on
18.01.2016 praying for recalling the Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2015
passed in MAC Case No. 1639/2013 on the ground that the Insurance Company
came to know that the deceased was hit by an unknown Maruti car from behind
which was mentioned in the medical certificate issued by the Assam Medical
College Hospital, Dibrugarh and not an Indigo car. The Insurance Company took
the plea that the claimants had procured the award by plying fraud upon the
tribunal and therefore, the award is required to be recalled.
6. The said review petition was registered as Misc Case No. 1/2016. The review
petition was disposed of by the learned MACT No. 3 Kamrup(M), Guwahati vide
Judgment and order dated 31.08.2017 setting aside the judgment and Award
dated 11.10.2015 passed in MAC Case No. 1639/2013. By the impugned
judgment dated 31.08.2017, the learned MACT No. 3 Kamrup(M), Guwahati held
that the claimants/ appellants are not entitled to any relief as fraud had vitiated
the award.
7. Being aggrieved the claimants/appellants have come before this Court
assailing the impugned Judgment dated 31.08.2017 passed by the learned
MACT No. 3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in Misc Case No. 1 /2016.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned MACT No. 3
had considered only the Medical certificate issued by the Assam Medical Collage
Hospital, and the evidence of the Medical Records Officer whereby it was stated
that an unknown Maruti vehicle hit the deceased from behind. It is submitted
that the Vehicle owner and the driver did not appear before the tribunal and
therefore, no objections were raised when the claim petition was filed. Learned
counsel submits that if the said indigo vehicle owner and driver were wrongly
Page No.# 5/11
implicated in the case, they would have inevitably appeared before the tribunal
with strong objections.
9. Learned counsel submits that the medical certificate alone cannot prove
whether the offending vehicle was an Indigo and Maruti vehicle. It is stated that
the accident occurred at 7:00 pm at night and as it was already dark by then it
is possible that a mistake had been made regarding the brand of the vehicle.
10. Learned counsel also submits that the fact that the deceased received
grievous injuries and died, as a result of the motor vehicle accident is not
disputed and therefore the claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation.
It is submitted that the claimants/appellants are not responsible for any
overwriting in the G.D Entry or using eraser in the G.D Entry as the same is not
a public document and the claimants/ appellants did not have any access to the
same and therefore, the appellants cannot be held responsible for the over
writing in the G.D Entry as alleged by the respondent No. 1.
11. Learned counsel further submits that there was no suppression of material
facts by the appellants in as much as they have only made the claim on the
basis of the police report, FIR and Accident Information Report and therefore
the judgment of the learned MACT No. 3 by putting the blame upon the
claimants/appellants is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the appellant has
also submitted that in the evidence of PW-2/ Muhi Kanta Gogoi, who was the
second Officer of Lahowal P.S., he had deposed that as per G.D Entry No. 28
one S.I R. Rautia had visited the place of occurrence and confirmed that the
accident was caused by an indigo car which fled away towards Tinsukia. The PW
2 also stated that it was mentioned in the G.D Entry that one Parasuram Gaur,
aged about 53 years was the injured in the accident, who was brought to Assam
Medical College Hospital by neighbors and relatives. PW-2 also deposed that in
Page No.# 6/11
the G.D Entry there was also mention that the vehicle No. AS-06-H-0237 was
written after being collected from the local people. In fact learned counsel has
submitted that the forwarding letter by the Superintendent of Police, Dubrugarh
dated 29.11.2016 while forwarding the enquiry report as directed by the MACT
No. 3 clearly mentioned that further enquiry will be required whether the
alteration made in the original in the G.D Entry was done bonafide and to
ascertain the genuineness of the same. Therefore, learned counsel submits that
the learned MACT without considering this statement made by the
Superintendent of Police, Dibrugarh rendered the impugned Judgment dated
11.10.2017. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the learned MACT No. 3 did not consider the FIR, the evidence of the police
officer/ PW-2, the charge sheet, and the Accident Information Report but rather
relied on the medical certificate of the Assam Medical College hospital,
Dibrugarh alone. Learned counsel prays that the impugned judgment may be
set aside and the judgment & award dated 11.02.2015 may be restored.
12. Learned counsel has relied on the following judgments in support of his
submissions:-
1) Sunita and Ors Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transportation
Corporation and Ors reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486
2) Putu Hazarika Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in
2013(2) GLT 882
3) Vimla Devi and Ors Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and
Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 186
4) Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Ors. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693
5) Bimla Devi and Ors Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation
and Ors. Reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530
13. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/Insurance Company has
submitted that the present case is not a case where a claim petition under
Page No.# 7/11
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act could have been filed before the MACT. It
is stated that at best the instant case is a hit and run case where the appellant
can approach the concerned government for compensation. Learned counsel
submits that the over writing and deletion in the G.D Entry has been proved by
the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 in MISC Case No. 1/2016. Learned counsel
submits that when the insurer had filed the MAC Case No. 1/2016 praying for
recalling the Judgment and award dated 11.02.2015 in MAC Case No.
1639/2013, the learned MACT had directed the Superintendent of Police,
Dibrugarh to conduct an enquiry into the allegations of corrections made in the
G.D Entry by replacing the word Maruti car with indigo car and the statement in
his claim petition that it was the tata indigo car bearing registration No. AS-06-
H-0237 which was the offending vehicle and not the maruti car. Whereas as per
the medical certificate issued by Assam Medical College Hospital, the offending
vehicle was an unknown Maruti vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that
the PW-1/Kulen Ch. Neog, who was the Medical Record Officer at Assam Medical
College Hospital, deposed that the deceased was accompanied by one Sailesh
Kumar Agarwal, neighbor and Ram Ch. Gaur, brother of deceased. He deposed
that in the medical register of Assam Medical College hospital, the case was
entered as history of RTA following hit by an unknown Maruti vehicle from
behind. On being cross examined PW-1 stated that normally the history of
patient is recorded on the basis of the statement either given by the injured or
by the attendants. Learned counsel therefore, submits that it was the neighbor
and brother of the deceased who stated that the deceased was hit by unknown
Maruti vehicle from behind. Learned counsel submits that the aforementioned
neighbor and brother were not examined by the claimants to prove otherwise.
14. Learned counsel further submits that the learned MACT had directed for an
Page No.# 8/11
inquiry to be conducted by the Superintendent of Police Dibrugarh. And in the
inquiry report it was categorically stated that in respect of G.D Entry No. 23
dated 01.06.2013, whitener was used and the word “indigo” was written in the
original G.D Entry book of the police station. But in the records available in the
C.I Office the word was found as “maruti”. Thus, it was found that the word
“maruti” was replaced by the word ‘indigo’ in the original G.D Entry book by
using whitener. The report further stated that in respect of G.D Entry No. 28
dated 01.06.2013, one sentence has been altered by using whitener. After using
whitener, the vehicle number was inserted in the original G.D Entry book as AS-
06/H-0237 whereas the same was not there in the G.D Entry records of C.I
Office in respect of G.D entry No. 28.
15. Learned Counsel submits that the claimants have suppressed material facts
and with common intention along with the police made the tata indigo vehicle
as the offending vehicle subsequently by correcting the G.D Entry. And
therefore, the fraud committed by the claimants/appellants has been proved
and the learned MACT No. 3 has passed a valid and reasoned order and prays
that the said impugned judgment and order dated 11.10.2017 may not be
interfered with. Learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company has
relied on the following cases:-
1) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH
AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2000 SC 1165
2) S. P. CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY L.RS VERSUS
JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY L. RS AND OTHERS reported in 1993
(Supp3) SCR 422
3) A. V. PAPAYYA SASTRY & ORS VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF A.P.
&ORS reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221
4) Judgement dated 19 January, 2018 ANIL & ORS VERSUS NEW
INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS reported in CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
Page No.# 9/11
3291- 3292 OF 2011
16. This Court has given due consideration to the rival submissions made by the
learned counsels for the parties. The court has also perused the pleadings and
the authorities relied upon by the parties, as well as the Trial Court Records.
17. It is settled law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the
court is null and void and non est in the eye of law. However, this principle has
to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. A mere
correction in a G.D Entry will not automatically amount to fraud so as to vitiate a
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The other relevant circumstances and
evidence also needs to be examined.
18. G.D entries by themselves are generally not substantive evidence to prove
an accident but they are corroborative evidence. MACT awards are based not
only on G.D entry but primarily on oral and documentary evidence such as FIR,
eye witness testimony, medical report, accident information report, medical
reports and chargesheet etc.
19. Fraud must be pleaded and proved by the party alleging the same. Mere
discrepancy is not enough; a G.D correction cannot be fraud by itself. It has to
be proved that the correction was made dishonestly with the intent to deceive
the tribunal.
20. In the present case, the factum of the accident and the fact of death of the
deceased due to a motor vehicle accident are not disputed by the
insurer/respondent No. 1. The initial G.D Entry may contain inaccuracies due to
urgency, confusion or poor visibility at the time of the accident. It is seen that
the accident occurred at 7:00 pm when it was already dark. And a wrong vehicle
description could have been entered due to poor visibility at that time, specially
when it is stated that the vehicle fled away toward Tinsukia. It is pertinent that
Page No.# 10/11
even in the forwarding letter dated 29.11.2016 enclosing the enquiry report
written by the Superintendent, Police Dibrugarh it is stated that ” In this regard,
further enquiry will be required whether the alteration made in the original G.D
Entry was done in a bonafide and to ascertain the genuinity of the same ”
21. This Court has also seen from the Trial Court Records that the FIR, the
accident information report and the charge sheet shows that the offending
vehicle was an indigo vehicle with registration No. AS-06-H-0237.
22. This Court has also perused the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 in MISC
Case No. 1 of 2016. The PW-2 clearly stated that one S.I R. Rautia visited the
place of occurrence and confirmed the accident caused by an indigo car which
fled away towards Tinsukia. He also deposed that the G.D Entry mentioned that
the vehicle No. was collected from the local people.
23. This Court is therefore of the view that it has not been proved by the
insurer/respondent No. 1 that the correction made in the G.D Entry was made
with dishonest intention inasmuch as mere suspicion, discrepancy or correction
without proof of dishonest intention is insufficient to vitiate the award of the
learned MACT. Moreover, the observations by the Superintendent of Police
Dibrugarh in the letter dated 29.11.2016 to the effect that further inquiry will be
required to ascertain whether the alteration made in the original G.D Entry was
made bonafide or not, would persuade this Court to give the benefit of doubt to
the claimant/appellant.
24. In view of the above discussions and observations, the impugned Judgment
dated 11.10.2017 passed in MAC Case No. 1/2016 is quashed and set aside and
the judgment and order dated 11.02.2015 passed in MAC Case No. 1639/2013
is restored.
25. The insurer/respondent No. 1 is directed to pay the awarded amount to the
Page No.# 11/11
claimants/appellants within a period of 90 days from the date of this order.
26. The Registry is directed to transmit the trial court records to the MACT No. 3
Kamrup (M), Guwahati, forthwith.
Petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_1]
Source link