The Karnataka High Court has said that it is the duty of courts to eliminate false claims made by persons seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for having met with an accident. The observation came as the court upheld a tribunal’s dismissal 12 years ago of a compensation claim.

“No doubt, the cases filed under Motor Vehicles Act require lenient consideration, and it is also the duty of the Court to eliminate the false claims,” said Justice P Sree Sudha on June 11, while upholding the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) order dismissing a claim petition filed by one Ashok Jadhav.

Jadhav claimed that an autorickshaw he was travelling in overturned in Davangere district on March 6, 2013. The tribunal rejected his claim for Rs 10 lakh in compensation and imposed a cost of Rs 1,500 on the autorickshaw’s insurer, National Insurance Company, and its driver.

Advocate Shashidhara R, appearing for Jadhav, contended that although the place of the accident recorded in the hospital report differed from that mentioned in the police complaint, the fact remains that he sustained injuries in the accident. Therefore, the tribunal ought not to have rejected his claim petition, the counsel argued.

The insurer’s counsel opposed the appeal, saying no such accident as claimed by Jadhav had occurred and that the autorickshaw driver had been implicated in collusion with the police. The counsel also pointed out that Jadhav had filed a police complaint three months after the alleged accident without providing any plausible explanation for the delay.

Mismatch in place of accident

Rejecting Jadhav’s contention that he or his relatives might have recorded the place of the accident differently in official records because of shock suffered due to the incident, the court said he had been a Davanagere resident for the past 20 years.

The court said in its order, “It cannot be presumed that he had no idea about the place of the accident, or he got confused regarding the place of the accident. Moreover, when he was admitted to the hospital, he was conscious, and he was accompanied by his wife.”

The court also refused to accept Jadhav’s explanation for the three-month delay in filing the police complaint—that he was waiting to secure details of the autorickshaw driver.

“Claimant has not mentioned the details specifically as to when he got those details from the police constable. He has not examined the driver of the auto rickshaw (before the tribunal), and there was no damage to the autorickshaw, and no injuries were sustained by the driver of the autorickshaw. The place of accident in the MLC report and in the claim petition is totally different,” the court order read.

The court further stated that Jadhav should have proved the offending vehicle’s involvement and its driver’s negligence and satisfactorily explained the delay.

“Therefore, this Court finds that there are no merits in the appeal,” its order read.