Motor accident claims based on fraud and false vehicle implication cannot succeed.

The appellant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of his wife, Anitha J., alleging that a motorcycle struck her on 24 February 2016.

The Tribunal initially awarded compensation, but the High Court set that award aside and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after noting circumstances raising suspicion about the claim.

On remand, the Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the accident and the motorcycle’s involvement had not been established. It relied, among other matters, on the deceased’s school attendance record, inconsistencies in the medical and accident accounts, and delay in reporting the incident.

The appellant appealed against the dismissal.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition upon finding that the claim involved fraud, collusion, and false implication of the insured motorcycle.

Whether the appellant established that he was the deceased’s legally wedded husband and lawful heir.

Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a claimant seeking compensation must establish entitlement to compensation arising from the alleged motor accident.

An appeal from the Tribunal’s award lies under Section 173(1).

The Court relied on Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, under which entries in an official record made by a public servant in the discharge of official duty are relevant evidence, and applied the maxim fraus omnia corrumpit—fraud vitiates solemn acts—when considering whether the claim was fraudulent.

The Court held that the remand was for fresh consideration, not limited to obtaining hospital records, and that the Tribunal could examine the entire evidentiary record once fraud was suspected.

The certified attendance register showed the deceased at school on the date of the alleged accident, contradicting the appellant’s and his brother’s account that she attended a wedding in Chitradurga.

The Court also considered the conflict between the alleged head injuries and the hospital record, the unexplained six-day delay in lodging the FIR, and the decision to transport the injured person to Bengaluru without first seeking local emergency care.

The service book recorded the deceased as divorced and did not name the appellant as her spouse; the appellant had not established his status as her legally wedded husband and lawful heir.

Taken together, these matters supported the Tribunal’s finding that the motorcycle had been falsely implicated.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s judgment and award dated 26 November 2021 were affirmed.