Fake Plates, Stolen Car Cloud Fatal Accident Case: Remanded for Review.


05 January 2024 Consumer Complaints >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Motor Accident >> Family Law  

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has overturned awards issued by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in two related cases stemming from a fatal accident in 2014. The court cited a "very casual" inquiry by the tribunal, highlighting its reliance on "assumptions, conjectures, and surmises" rather than a thorough examination of evidence.
The cases, MAC.APP. 920/2018 and MAC.APP. 922/2018, involved the deaths of Surinder Singh and Naveen Kumar, who were killed when the vehicle they were travelling in crashed. The core dispute revolved around who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and whether the vehicle was stolen.

Key Issues and Tribunal Errors:

The High Court identified several critical flaws in the tribunal's handling of the cases:

Conflicting Eyewitness Testimony: A key witness, Sudhir, testified that Naveen Kumar was driving the vehicle, contradicting the claimants' assertion that Sumit was the driver. The tribunal failed to adequately address this discrepancy, even neglecting to acknowledge Sudhir's statement in one of the cases.

Fake Number Plate and Theft Allegations: The vehicle was found to be using a fake number plate, and the owner, Anil Kumar, had filed a police report claiming it was stolen. The tribunal did not conduct a proper inquiry into these crucial aspects, despite its power to summon witnesses and seek police assistance.

Improper Inference of Guilt: The tribunal relied on an FIR and an anticipated charge sheet against Sumit to conclude he was the driver. However, the FIR did not name Sumit as the driver, and the charge sheet had not been filed at the time of the tribunal's award.

Failure to Consider Legal Precedents: The High Court emphasized that the tribunal failed to apply established legal principles regarding insurance liability in cases of stolen vehicles. Citing precedents, the court stated that if the vehicle was stolen, neither the owner nor the insurance company could be held liable.

Casual Inquiry: The court heavily criticized the tribunal for not properly investigating the fake license plate, and the theft allegations. The judge stated that the tribunal should have summoned police officials to inquire about the investigation.

 

 
 
 

High Court's Decision and Remand:

The High Court set aside the tribunal's awards and remanded the cases back for a fresh inquiry. It directed the tribunal to:
  • Conduct a thorough investigation into the circumstances of the accident, including the conflicting eyewitness testimony and the allegations of vehicle theft.
  • Give Anil Kumar, the vehicle owner, an opportunity to present further evidence.
  • Expedite the inquiry and conclude it within six months.
  • Consider the large sum of money already deposited by the insurance company, and give directions as to its entitlement after the new ruling.

Legal Implications:

This ruling underscores the importance of rigorous inquiry and adherence to legal principles in motor accident claims cases. It serves as a reminder that tribunals must not rely on assumptions or incomplete evidence, especially when dealing with complex factual scenarios. The High Court's emphasis on the tribunal's duty to investigate all relevant aspects, including potential criminal activity, highlights the need for a comprehensive and impartial approach to such cases.