2000 (3) TMI 1077 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Fraudulent claims, power of Tribunal to recall awards, jurisdiction of High Court in cases of fraud in obtaining judgments.

Summary:

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of fraudulent claims made by two individuals who obtained separate awards from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Insurance Company, upon discovering the fraud, approached the Tribunal and later the High Court for relief, but both entities expressed helplessness in addressing the matter. The Court emphasized the principle that fraud and justice cannot coexist and highlighted the importance of courts having the power to address fraudulent practices in legal proceedings.

The claimants had filed identical claims before the Tribunal, alleging injuries from a motor accident. The Tribunal found the driver guilty of negligence and awarded compensation to the claimants. However, new evidence emerged showing that the injuries were sustained in a different incident, casting doubt on the authenticity of the claims. The Insurance Company sought to recall the awards based on this new information, but the Tribunal and High Court initially refused to entertain the plea, citing lack of jurisdiction for review.

The Supreme Court emphasized that fraud renders judicial acts null and void, and courts have inherent power to set aside orders obtained through fraudulent means. The Court recognized the Insurance Company's duty to protect public funds and justified their pursuit of the matter up to the Supreme Court. The Court concluded that the awards should be quashed, and the claims reconsidered in light of the fraud allegations, ensuring both parties have the opportunity to present their case.

In the final judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the previous orders, and directed the Tribunal to reexamine the claims with the involvement of the Insurance Company to substantiate their allegations. The Court emphasized the need for a fair process to address the fraud allegations and prevent any miscarriage of justice, while clarifying that the Tribunal should not be influenced by the Court's observations on the merits of the allegations during the fresh consideration of the claims.