1 2026:CGHC:14201-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 165 of 2026 1 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Legal Manager, Office No. 403 4th Floor, DB., City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, PHQ, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - State Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 6 - High Court of Chhattisgarh, Through The Registrar General High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.01 20:07:26 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25-03-2026 1. Heard Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State and Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 2. By way of the present writ petition the petitioner is claiming to constitution of Special Investigating Team or Special Task Force to conduct the proper investigation/re-investigation with respect to filing of false claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation to victims and prayed the following relief(s) in the present writ petition:- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, directing Respondents State authorities to constitute setting Special Investigating Team (SIT) or Special Task Force (STF) or any other investigating agency/team as may be deemed fit. 3 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing respondents State authorities to conduct Re-investigation in the cases (Annexure-P/4) Colly. And (Annexure-P/5). 10.4 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing respondent no.6 so as to ascertain from MACT’s such doubtful cases which prima facie may require investigation and to prevent filing of such fabricated case. 10.5 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 3. The subject matter in brief, is that, the petitioner has aggrieved by the failure to comply with the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the false implantation of vehicles in motor accident cases claiming proper investigation. The petitioner is duly incorporated and registered insurance company under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of general insurance which governs by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI). In ordinary course of its business the petitioner company issues motor insurance policies in respect of various vehicles receiving prescribed premium and providing insurance coverage to the vehicles under the terms and conditions of the respective insurance policies. The respondents are State authorities and entrusted with the responsibility 4 of special care of public funds and preventing fraudulent practices so as to reduce loss of public money. The petitioner company is bound to compensate the genuine victims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, also to protect his interest against the fake claims. The State authorities have a pivotal role in the registration of the vehicles and investigation of accidental cases. Considering the increasing of fake motor accident claim cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued certain instructions to all States/Union Territories and Insurance Companies regarding steps to be taken to rule out filing of fake cases in the case of Safiq Ahmad Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and others in SLP(C) ...CC No.23628/2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 05-01-2017 issued notice to all the States/Union Territories and Registrar General of High Courts including Bar Council of India to find out as to what action has been taken or proposed against named Advocates, who have indulged in such unethical practice. Despite taking cognizance of the issue, the State authorities have not taken any care to constitute Special Investigation Team or Special Task Force team to prevent such practice of filing fake claims and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid prayer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the State authorities are bound to comply with the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court time to time in the case of Safiq Ahmad (supra), yet the Special Investigating Team and Special Task Force team could not be constituted by the State till date. High numbers of motor vehicle accident and pendency of claim cases throughout the State, the 5 estimate indicates that the false and fabricated claims may involve sums running into several hundred crores of repees. Though, the insurance company are entitled to raise objection before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, but such objection are adjudicated only at the time of final hearing, that too subject to filing of appeal by aggrieved party and during those period the insurance companies suffer substantial financial loss which could be prevented through the constitution of Special Investigation Team. He would also submit that as and when the claim case is filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, immediately the insurance company has to satisfy order passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under no fault liability which may not be recoverable if ultimately the claimants loses. He would also submit that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court is monitoring the issue and directions have been issued in the case of Safiq Ahmad (supra), yet the State authorities are required to constitute the Special Investigation Team or Special Task Force team to proper enquiry and investigation against false claims. Therefore, a suitable direction may be issued to the State authorities for constitution of Special Investigation Team or Special Task Force team under the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Safik Ahmad (supra). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.6 would submit that they are representing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Safiq Ahmed (supra) and filed their response to the direction issued to the High Court and framing of relevant rules to curb out fake 6 claims are under consideration before the appropriate committee of this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also submitted that the State authorities are also bound to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and they have also under the process to frame appropriate guidelines to check the issue of filing of fake claim cases and to frame the policy for the same, for which measures are being taken by the State. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. The claim of the petitioner for constitution of Special Investigation Team or Special Task Force team is on the basis of the following directions/observations issued/made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- (1) Vide order dated 05-01-2017 in the case of Safiq Ahmad Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) ….. CC No.23628/2016, wherein it was directed that:- “…….Thus we propose to issue notice to all the States/Union Territories and insurance companies as to what steps can be taken to rule out the filing of fake cases and what remedial measures can be taken. The notice be also issued to the High Courts through Registrars so as to ascertain from MACTs such doubtful cases which prima facie may require investigation and to prevent filing of such fabricated cases. It is also considered necessary to issue notice to the Bar Council 7 of Uttar Pradesh and to the Bar Council of India, through their Secretaries to find out what action has been taken or proposed against the named advocates, who have indulged in such unethical practice. Let notice issue to all the States/Union Territories, Registrar General of High Court including Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh within a period of 15 days, returnable in six weeks. Let the responses be filed within a period of six weeks.” (2) Vide order dated 16 December, 2021 passed in SLP (C) No.1110 of 2017 (Safiq Ahmad Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in (2021) 18 SCC 813), wherein it was observed in para 2 and 8 that:- “2. Pursuant to our earlier order dated 05.10.2021, the Special Investigating Team (SIT) has filed a status report with respect to complaints filed/enquiry completed, the names of the accused, where the criminal complaints are filed and in which criminal cases the charge -sheets have been filed. A separate sheet containing the names of advocates against whom the prima facie cases of cognizable offences have been found, is also filed in a separate sealed cover. It is stated in the status report that total 1376 cases of suspicious claims from various districts in the State of U.P. have been received so far by SIT. That the year-wise detail of 1376 cases received in various years thereof is as under: Sr. No. Year Cases Received Each Year 1. 2015 252 2. 2016 735 3. 2017 128 4. 2018 95 5. 2019 65 6. 2020 71 7. 2021 30 Total Cases 1376 8 8. Separate notes have been filed pointing out the modus operandi in instituting the fake compensation petitions. Some of the modus operandi adopted are as under: (i) Non-road accident injury-death converted into road accident claims: (ii) Fraudulent implantation of vehicle; (iii) False implantation of driver; (iv) Claimant implantation; (v) Multiple claims at various for a at different territorial locations for compensation out of injury/death caused arising out of the same accident. Often the claim applications are filed both before various MACT Tribunals as well as the authorities under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923; (vi) Fake/fabricated insurance policies; and (vii) Fake/fabricated income document/medical documents for exaggerated compensation.” (3) Vide order dated 08-04-2025 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1110 of 2017 (Safiq Ahmad Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, wherein it was observed/directed that:- “1. These are matters relating to fake claims being set up before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. This Court is monitoring these matters and has directed 9 the respective states, as well as the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils, to respond. 2. None of the States except the State of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh have filed response. 3. Most of the States and the State Bar Councils are unrepresented before the Court. 4. Therefore, we adjourn the matters for the next week with clear direction that all the counsel representing the various States as well as the Bar Council of India shall positively be present to inform the stand taken by them.” (4) Vide order dated 16-04-2025 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1110 of 2017 (Safiq Ahmad Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, wherein it was observed/directed in para 4 that:- “4. We expect all the States to file their response within a period of three weeks clearly indicating as to how many fake claims have been detected throughout the respective States and the manner in which the exercise of detection of fake claims was carried out. It would be better if the report of the Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) in this regard is also enclosed with the affidavit. The affidavit should also indicate the investigation which may have been carried out in respect of such fake claims and whether charge sheets have been submitted or the charges have been framed.” 10 (5) Vide order dated 22-07-2025 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1110 of 2017 (Safiq Ahmad Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, wherein it was observed/directed in para 3 and 4 that:- “3. Learned counsel representing the High Court of Jharkhand submitted that the High Court has filed the response but there is no response from the side of other State. Even the High Court of Delhi has filed response. 4. In view of the above, let the remaining States may file their response within a further period of one month and no more. It is expected that all States would file their response within the aforesaid time positively whereupon a Tabular Chart of the fake claims State/ District wise would be drawn up and submitted to the court.” 9. In view of the aforesaid directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court time to time it clearly transpires that the matter and issue involved in the present writ petition has already been seized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court is monitoring the action of the State authorities by passing directions on various dates and since the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been seized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are not inclined to issue any direction to the respondents at this stage. Further, there is submission made by learned Counsel for respondent No.6, on instruction, that framing of rules is under consideration before the appropriate 11 committee. Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that the State is also going to take necessary steps to frame policy for the same and the necessary affidavit would be filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter. 10. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation, at this stage, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil