Motor Accident
Award for damage of vehicle—Appeal—Submission that when admittedly, claim was of damage sustained by the claimant’s vehicle and such claim was already successfully made by the claimant with his Insurance Company, the present claim made was for double benefit which is against the very essence of law of insurance—A claim for insurance is a claim out of utmost good faith—There is a legal obligation on the part of a claimant making a claim qua a contract of insurance to disclose all the relevant facts and not to suppress any material facts—A contract of insurance is a contract to indemnify an insured by the insurer with regard to any claim made during the validity of such policy—Any claim arising out of such contract mandatorily requires that such claim is made bona fide and with utmost good faith—Claim was admittedly made for damage of vehicle and not for any injury sustained by any person—Impugned judgment clearly reveals that amount granted was based purely on conjecture and speculation, with no substantial evidence to justify the award—Payment received by the claimant from his Insurance Company, which was revealed during cross-examination, was not contested in any forum concerning its adequacy—Motor Accident Claims Tribunal fell into grave error in entertaining the claim itself and subsequently granting the award—Impugned award set aside—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 21, 23 to 27]
Award for damage of vehicle—Prayer for enhancement—A claim for insurance is a claim out of utmost good faith—Claim was already successfully made by the claimant with his Insurance Company—Claimant’s approach in making the present claim appears to be without any bona fide intent—Impugned award was passed without considering the cruelty aspect—Claimant’s attempt to seek an enhancement of the award is audacious—A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should not be approached for a windfall or undue gain—Frivolous litigations, apart from being a gross misuse of the process of court, is also adding to the pendency—This menace must be nipped in the bud to ensure that precious judicial time is preserved and utilized for the effective dispensation of justice—Claimant’s appeal dismissed with a token cost of rupees five thousand.
[Para 29]