LexUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus RAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS. ETC. MARCH 14, 2000 [K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 226. Writ Jurisdiction-Power of High Court to recall order or decree ob- tained by fraud. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 151, 152and153. Fraud-Power of court to recall orders obtained by fraud. Insurance Company-Insured-Awards obtained by fraud-Applications D for review of awards by Insurance Company-Dismissal by Tribunal-Writ for recalling awards-Dismissal by High Court-Appeal before Supreme Court- Held Insurance Company was justified in approaching the Tribunal-High Court ought not to have refused to consider grievance of Insurance Com- pany-The remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly E d.iscovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree cannot be foreclosed. F G H Maxim-Frans et jus nunquam cohabitant-Meaning and applicability. of The first respondent in both these appeals (father and son) obtained a separate award from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahar for a sum of Rs. 3,55,000 and Rs. 1,52,000 respectively alongwith interest @12% from the date of claim. Their claim was based in respect of an accident which occurred on 9.11.1993. In their claiin petition they stated that the motor cycle on which they were travelling collided with an ambas- sador· car as a result of which injuries were caused to both of them. Subsequent to the passing of awards the Insurance Company came to know that the respondents have committed fraud in obtaining the awards be- cause they have not received injuries as alleged in their petitions. Instead they received injuries in different circumstances at a different place alto- gether i.e. while they were operating their own tractor its trolly had slipped into the pit. Therefore, the appellant Insurance Company moved applica- 264 I .,;li '. lJNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. v. RAJENDRA SINGH 265 tions before the Tribunal for recall of the awards on the ground that they were obtained by playing fraud. The allegation of fraud was not specifically denied by the respondent-claimants. Instead they contested the applica- tions for recall of awards on the ground that the Tribunal has no power to recall its orders except to correct any error in calculating the amount of compensation. The Tribunal accepted the said plea and dismissed the applications for recalling of awards. A writ petition filed by the Insurance Company before the Allahabad High Court for quashing the awards was dismissed on the ground that writ jurisdiction was not a proper forum for deciding a question of fact viz. whether a fraud has been played. There- fore, the Insurance Company may avail the legal remedy as may be available to him. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned order, this Court HELD : 1. The remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree cannot be foreclosed. No court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim. [270-H] 2. ''Fraud and justice never dwell together." (Frans et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim ~hich has never lost its temper over all these centuries. For a High Court in India to say that it has no power even to consider the contention that the awards secured are the by-products of stark fraud played on a Tribunal, the plenary power conferred on the High Court by the Constitution may become a mirage and people's faith in the efficacy of the High Courts would corrode. If a party complaining of fraud having been practised on him as well as on the court by another party · resulting in a decree, cannot avail himself of the remedy of review or even the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, what else is the alternative remedy for him? Is he to surrender to the product of the fraud and thereby become a conduit to enrich the imposter unjustly? The High Court while indicat- ing about some other alternative remedy did not unfortunately spell out what is the other remedy which the appellant Insurance Company could pursue with. [262-B; C; 269-F] 3. No one can possibly faulttlie Insurance Company for persistently A B c D E F G H 266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.