New Delhi: While rejecting the petition for the claims of Rs 9.5 Crore by the family of a man who was allegedly killed in a motorcycle accident, a Delhi Tribunal said that while sympathizing with a grieving family, the facts seemed to have been manipulated, with eyewitnesses that appeared after The police have submitted a closing report.
Additional Session Judge Shuchi Laler stated that it allows claims to insurance companies through collusion between prosecutors and vehicle owners not only to mock the justice system, but also encourage intermediaries that regulate these collusion among the parties.
This observation came after the court recorded the way the vehicle was offenden which was originally unknown suddenly identified six months after an accident with two allegations of eyewitnesses and defense cases installed by vehicle owners.
It really indicates collusion among vehicle owners, the deceased and two man who is called eyewitnesses, the court said.
The 1.1 Crore Hospital compensation grant that previously paid to families who died by insurance companies had been challenged in the Delhi High Court, which set aside orders and send files back to court trial for towing.
When this problem occurred before the ACT motorbike claimed the court again, insurance companies were allowed to check one of the witnesses of the Petitioner in the field who took part in his testimony to Gact, the witness had been hostile to his deposit before the judge in a case villain associated with an accident.
On December 14, the court noted that the case submitted by you died in 2010 did not mention the registration number, making, model and color of the vehicle involved.
And even though the police cannot trace the vehicle offensive, the brother filed in writing to the police that two people had witnessed the accident.
A witness stated that he did not know how he was traced by the died relatives.
The others said that he went to the police to give his statement after seeing the news about the accident on TV.
He also claimed to be approached by the deceased’s brother.
The court observed that the offending vehicle was not damaged by the accident.
It was also said that the vehicle owner did not try to prove the case of his defense by Cross examining two eyewitnesses, but claimed to be involved in the accident.
Said that collusion between parties competing in cases involving the amount of large insurance could not be ruled out, MACT, “The court cannot be a silent audience against collusion between vehicle owners and prosecutors, especially in cases where the police submit closure / Untrace Report on the grounds that vehicles that mentioned could not be traced and what was called advanced eyewitnesses and supported the prosecutor’s case before the court and the case of the vehicle / driver of the vehicle before the criminal court, thus truly cheating insurance.
The company …
from Crores From rupees.
“It was added,” Even though the court is fully sympathetic to the pain and suffering of the applicants because of the sudden death of the deceased, at the same time, equally the responsibility of the court to ensure that the justice process is not misused.
” Additional sessions of the court observed that insurance companies cannot be made to pay compensation in cases where accidents have been staged or insured vehicles have replaced uninsured vehicles actually involved in an accident or when the accident is hit-and-run the case where the vehicle is Touching cannot be traced.