Bengaluru High Court Exonerates Insurer in Fraudulent Accident Claim, Holds Vehicle Owner Liable
In a significant legal development, the Bengaluru High Court has delivered a decisive verdict in a long-running compensation battle stemming from a 2009 road accident. Justice P Sree Sudha ruled that the owner of an implicated motorcycle, not the insurer, must pay enhanced damages to an injured stenographer, citing clear evidence of collusion and wrongful vehicle implication.
Court Finds Deliberate Attempt to Secure Wrongful Gain
Justice Sree Sudha, while enhancing the compensation, exonerated ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited from any liability. The court observed that the case involved a deliberate attempt to rope in an insured vehicle to secure wrongful financial gain. This ruling underscores the judiciary's stance against fraudulent claims in motor accident cases.
Background of the 2009 Accident and Shifting Narratives
The case dates back to August 30, 2009, when J Subramanya, a stenographer at the Office of the Director, Karnataka Engineer Research Station in Krishna Raja Sagara (KRS), was traveling from Mysuru to Pandavapura. Near Hotel Mayura at Srirangapatna on the Bengaluru-Mysuru Road, his motorcycle was allegedly hit by a Hero Honda bike ridden rashly from the opposite direction.
In his initial complaint filed the next day, Subramanya named Suresh as the rider of the offending vehicle (KA-11-S-9918) and claimed serious injuries that kept him off work for months. However, the narrative shifted dramatically just days later. A second complaint, filed on September 6, 2009 by a relative, cited an entirely different vehicle (KA-11-S-0018) and another rider, S Shivakumar, as being involved in the crash, raising suspicions about the authenticity of the claim.
Legal Proceedings and Tribunal's Initial Award
Initially, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Pandavapura awarded a modest Rs 79,850 with 6% interest in 2013 against Subramanya's claim of Rs 20 lakh. The insurer challenged this award, alleging fraud, while Subramanya sought higher compensation, leading to the high court's intervention.
Court's Findings on Collusion and Intentional Implication
After examining the records, Justice Sree Sudha concluded that the later implication of a different, insured vehicle was not accidental but intentional. The judge stated, "It is a clear case of implication of another vehicle which is having insurance to gain wrongfully, done in collusion with the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, this court finds it reasonable to exonerate the insurance company."
Enhanced Compensation and Final Liability
Despite the findings of fraud, the court acknowledged that Subramanya had indeed suffered injuries and loss of income, having been unable to work for over five months. Taking this into account, the court enhanced the compensation to Rs 2.6 lakh with 6% annual interest. With this ruling, the entire liability has now been fastened on the owner of the implicated motorcycle, SN Raghavendra, bringing a long-running and contested claim to a decisive and cautionary close.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the legal consequences of attempting to manipulate insurance claims through collusion and false implications. It highlights the judiciary's role in upholding integrity in accident compensation processes while ensuring that genuine victims receive fair redressal.
