2025:JHHC:34097 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 312 of 2024 M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Sri Ram City, 4th Floor, Office No. 410, Main Road, Saraidhela, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand, through Manager Legal, Amit Jaiswal, aged about 34 years, son of Shri M. Bhagat, having its Branch at Kadru Bye Pass Road, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. .... .... Appellant Versus 1. Sulochana Devi, wife of Late Basudev Rajwar. 2. Bandana Devi, daughter of Late Basudev Rajwar & wife of Kishor Rajwar. 3. Manish Kumar, son of Late Basudev Rajwar. 4. Priyanka Kumari, daughter of Late Basudev Rajwar. 5. Anshu Kumari, daughter of Late Basudev Rajwar. Sl. Nos. 4 & 5 are minors and are being represented through their mother Sulochana Devi, wife of Late Basudev Rajwar. 6. Mohan Rajwar, father's name not known to the appellant. 7. Pawan Devi, wife of Mohan Rajwar. All residents of Qr. No. A/8/10, N.B.C.C. Colony, Nunudih, P.O. Patherdih, P.S. Sudamdih, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 8. Santosh Bouri, son of Late Mitan Bouri, resident of At Pure Chasnala, Hirak Road, Chasnalla, P.O. Chasnalla, P.S. Chasnalla, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand … …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant :Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1-7 : Mr. Rajiv Karan, Advocate Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Madhav Prasad, Advocate For the Resp. No.8 : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate ------ Order No. 05 / Dated : 12.11.2025. 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of compensation passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 107 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, a compensation of Rs. 1,25,09,401/- with interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants/respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 2. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the death of Basudev Rajwar took place while he was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No. JH10AV 7478 on 16.01.2018 to Jealgora which was dashed by another motorcycle bearing Registration No. JH-10BD-0778 resulting in his death. 3. The deceased was employed as a Fitter in BCCL and was earning Rs. 83,863/- per month at the time of accident. The award of compensation has been made 2025:JHHC:34097 2 against the appellant-Insurance Company which was the insurer of the motorcycle No. JH-10BD-0778. 4. The appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that by playing fraud the claimants had obtained compensation. Under a criminal conspiracy the claimant in collusion with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle by manufacturing a false story of accident have obtained compensation in the present case. 5. It is contended that driver of the offending vehicle is Nirmal Prasad and he was projected as driver in another motor vehicle accident case as a driver of a car, and heavy compensation amount was obtained by concocting a false story of accident. In para-14 of the memo of appeal, the list of cases showing Nirmal Prasad to be a driver in the present case, has also been a driver in MACC No. 300/2017 where he has been shown to be a driver of Car No. JH10AY7543. His brother has been projected as an owner in MACC No. 317/2017 of Car No. JH10BT 0316 which was also an offending vehicle. Shanu Kumar and Naresh Prasad Mandal had turned to be the eye witnesses and also bailors. 6. In MACC Nos. 107/2018 and 300/2017 these facts were brought before this Court and vide order dated 24.07.2025, S.I.T. was constituted to be headed by the Officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police to enquire into the matter and to submit a report. S.I.T. report has been received. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company that the manner in which a false and concocted case to claim compensation from the appellant- Insurance Company has been filed will be apparent from the following facts: - (i) The accident claiming the life of the deceased (Basudev Rajwar) which is said to have taken place on 16.01.2018 at 4:00 p.m. while he was going by his Motorcycle bearing Registration No. JH 10AB 7478 which was dashed by Motorcycle bearing Registration No. JH10BD 0778. The FIR has however been lodged after a delay of 38 days on 23.02.2018 being Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.13 of 2018 under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC on the basis of a Written report lodged by the wife of the deceased, Sulochana Devi. As per the FIR, the death had taken 2025:JHHC:34097 3 place on 19.01.2018 and there is no explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR; (ii) The FIR has been lodged against one Nirmal Kumar and the charge-sheet has also been submitted against him who is said to have been driving the said motorcycle at the relevant time; (iii) There is absolutely no reason assigned for engaging a driver for motorcycle and it is nobody’s case that the said Nirmal Kumar had taken the vehicle being a friend or relative from the owner of it, namely, Santosh Bouri (Defendant No.1). Santosh Bouri has not offered any explanation for handing-over the Motorcycle to the alleged driver, Nirmal Kumar. (iv) It is not the first time that Nirmal Kumar was driving the Motor vehicle which met with an accident culminating into a Motor Accident Claim Case. The said Nirmal Kumar @ Nirmal Prasad , S/o Gopal Prasad was also a driver said to be driving Car bearing Registration No. JH 10AY 7543 in M.V. Case No.300 /2017 which is said to have dashed the deceased; (v) The said Nirmal Prasad @ Nirmal Kumar, S/o Gopal Prasad again figures in M.A.C.C. Case No.02/ 2018 in which compensation of Rs.53,65, 609/- was allowed against the New India Assurance Company Limited; (vi) Very interestingly misfortune appears to have struck the brother of said Nirmal Prasad, namely, Arun Prasad who is said to be owner of Car bearing Registration No. JH 10BT 0316 in M.V. Case No.317/ 2017. (vii) Another brother of said Nirmal Prasad, namely, Sanu Kumar was Driver of Car bearing Registration No. JH 10T 0316 in said M.V. No.317 /2017; (viii) The coincidence appearing in these accident cases do not end here with the driver and owner of the vehicle, but the same witness appears to be surfacing in different accident claim case(s). One Mangesh Kumar Singh, S/o Durga Singh who has been cited as a witness in M.V. No.317/ 2017 is also a charge- sheet witness in the present case. 8. Mangesh Kumar Singh was a seizure list witness in MACC No. 317 of 2017 2025:JHHC:34097 4 also became an accused in charge sheet shown as driver in MACC No. 361 of 2019. He has also cited as an eye witness in MACC No. 02 of 2018. 9. It was against these background that the appellant-Insurance Company filed a petition before the learned Tribunal on 15.05.2024 to constitute a SIT for proper investigation, but the said petition was not disposed of before passing the award. 10. Furthermore, the investigator, namely, Rajiv Ranjan Yadav was also examined before the learned Tribunal as O.P.W.-1 on behalf of the Insurance- Company in which these facts were brought to the notice of the Tribunal, but the award of compensation has been passed without discussing the evidence of O.P.W.-1. 11. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the claimants that he does not hold any brief for Nirmal Kumar who may have coincidentally met with accident in different occasions. However, this defence has been taken at the appellate stage and was not taken at the Trial Court. Further, it has not been disputed that the deceased died in motor vehicle accident who was serving in BCCL and consequently, the compensation was awarded to the claimants on the point of delay. It is submitted that it is not a criminal case rather a civil case which is brought under MV Act and beneficial piece of legislation. When the family suffered due to the accident it was not in a position to immediately approach the police as the deceased had been taken to Durgapur Hospital in West Bengal for better treatment and he died there. After his death, time elapsed in completing his funeral rites only then the case will be lodged. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held the delay in claim cases cannot be fatal as held in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & Ors. {(2011) 4 SCC 693 para 20.} 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle-respondent no. 8 submits that the said motor cycle was taken on request by Nirmal Kumar as they leave in the same locality, therefore, it was given. The said motorcycle was duly insured and the accident has taken place during the subsistence of the insurance. It is contended that accident resulted due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased who was driving his motorcycle at the time of accident. Findings 13. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides the fact 2025:JHHC:34097 5 that emerges is that the driver of the vehicle Nirmal Kumar @ Nirmal Prasad Son of Gopal Prasad was also involved in another accident regarding which motor accident claim case was filed. This coincidence was not limited to him, but his immediately family member which has been brought on record in the forgoing paragraph by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. These facts of coincidence have a direct bearing as to whether the accident was outcome of coincidence or it was under a design to raise claim against Insurance Company. Section 15 of the Evidence Act sheds valuable light on it which reads as under: - Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional- when there is a question whether an act was accidental (or intentional or done with a particular knowledge or intention), the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned is relevant. Illustration (a) appended to the Section is an under: - A is an accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured. The fact that A lived in several houses successively, each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred and after each of which fires A received payment from a different insurance office, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental. 14. It was this background of facts which impelled the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to constitute a SIT and the Court has now received a report. The sum and substance of the report is as under: - I. The report has been received from the SIT headed by the IG, Police Headquarters, Ranchi. As per the report, the present case which is related to Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 13 of 2018. The driver of the offending vehicle Nirmal Kumar @ Pappu Sinha son of Late Gopal Prasad was a resident of NBCC Colony Quarter No. D/3 Patherdih, under Sudamdih P.S., District Dhanbad. The charge sheeted eye witness Raju Pal Son of Late Manbodh Pal has stated before the SIT that he cannot name the vehicle involved in the incident and had not seen the occurrence. The vakalatnama has been filed in the police case in the Dhanbad Court in the name of Advocate B.K. Sinha whose name was Basant Kumar Sinha, but he cannot be traced out by that name at Dhanbad. 2025:JHHC:34097 6 II. Mangesh Kumar Singh son of Durga Prasad Singh who is another witness in the present police case arising out of present motor accident claim case and did not support the prosecution case and declared hostile. However, before the SIT he supported the case. Another witness, namely, Mahavir Choudhary son of Late Ganga Choudhary was also declared hostile in the police case, but before the SIT he has supported the case. In the complaint case, it has been shown that Advocate B.K. Sinha son of Late Gopal Prasad was the brother of the accused Nirmal Kumar @ Pappu Sinha. Another witness Raju Pal in Jorapokhar PS Case No.13/2018 had stated that it was the deceased who had dashed the offending vehicle from the rear side. However, before the SIT he denied to have seen any incident. III. The SIT after its detailed report has concluded that the claim cases arising out of Jorapokhar PS Case No. 13/2018 and Sudamdih PS Case No.31 of 2017involved the same person Nirmal Kumar, whereas the driver of Jharia PS Case No. 207/2017 was Sonu Kumar, whereas the owner of the vehicle was the brother of Naresh Kumar. All these factors raise serious suspicion on the claim case. 15. Coming back to the present case, as stated earlier, the evidence was brought on record regarding the same person being involved in different accidents and there is no finding with regard to this aspect regarding the possibility of the case being filed to raise false claim case against the appellant- Insurance Company. 16. Further, the learned Tribunal also did not dispose of the multiple petitions were filed including constitution of SIT for conducting inquiry, but the same were also not disposed of. 17. As a cumulative effect of the evidence and the materials on record raise serious doubt on the claim case against the offending vehicle in which common driver has been shown to be involved. 18. In the facts of the present case, as discussed above, there emerges prima facie material of an unscrupulous litigant, and witnesses having conspired to fabricate a false and fraudulent claim for compensation before a Court of law. As aptly observed by Jeremy Bentham, “Witnesses are the eyes and ears of 2025:JHHC:34097 7 justice.” If witnesses resort to deliberate falsehood, the very foundation of a fair trial is shaken, and truth and justice become the first casualties, thereby eroding the Rule of Law. The mortal threat posed to the criminal justice system by such tendencies has been a matter of serious concern repeatedly highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in unequivocal terms. It has been held in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC 757: 38. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the Act) defines criminal contempt as "the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever to (1) scandalise or tend to scandalise or lower or tend to lower the authority of any court, (2) prejudice or interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or (3) interfere or tend to interfere with, or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. Thus, any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the party concerned in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery of by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt of the court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at the rule of law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an 2025:JHHC:34097 8 ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995) 1 SCC 421: 1995 SCC (Cri) 239] the respondents produced a false and fabricated certificate to defeat the claim of the respondent for transfer of a case. This action was found to be an act amounting to interference with the administration of justice. Brother Hansaria, 1. speaking for the Bench observed: (SCC pp. 423-24, paras 1 and 2) “The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment, so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings, or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice." 19. Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C. [now Chapter XXVIII of the B.N.S.S., 2023] confers special powers on the Courts to punish those found guilty of perjury in a summary way. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahila Vinod Kumari Vs. State of M.P.; (2008) 8 SCC 34 that the evil of perjury had assumed alarming proportions in cases depending on oral evidence and in order to deal with the menace effectively, it was desirable for the Courts to use the provisions more effectively and frequently than it is presently done. 20. Claim applications like any other pleadings are required to be verified by the party under Order 6 Rule 15 of CPC. By 2002 amendment, specific provision has been made by inserting Rule 15(4) that person verifying shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings. The object being to maintain the sanctity of the pleading and in the event of any false pleading, the person concerned to be punished for the same. Swearing false affidavit is a criminal offence. 21. As such, the impugned order being not sustainable is accordingly set aside. 2025:JHHC:34097 9 22. The matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal so as to decide the case afresh after hearing the parties and affording sufficient opportunity to lead evidence, if any. In the event, it appears that the offence has been committed and also in the administration of justice, the learned Tribunal shall proceed as per the law against the persons involved. The hearing of the claim case be concluded within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 23. In the meantime, there will not be any disbursement of the compensation amount to the claimants. 24. Let copy of the report of the SIT be furnished to the concerned parties at once. Thereafter, the report of the SIT be transmitted to the learned Tribunal. The instant Misc. Appeal is accordingly allowed. I.A. if any, also stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/Pawan/ - Uploaded 17.11.2025