M.K. Hanjura ORDER
M.K. Hanjura, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10th of September, 2015, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in case titled "New India Assurance Company v. Ali Mohammad Dar".
2. The facts chiseled out of the appeal are that a claim petition was filed by the respondents/claimants on 9th of April, 2008 which was finally disposed of by the Tribunal on 9th of June, 2014 directing payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,8000/- together with 6% interest in their favour from the date of the institution of petition. At the time of filing of the claim petition, the appellant company pleaded before the Tribunal that there has been a breach of the conditions of the policy. However, after passing the interim award for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, the appellant company contended that the policy was not in existence and, therefore, sought the recall of the order, but the said petition was dismissed and, ultimately, a final award was passed on 9th of June, 2014, directing the payment as aforesaid. After passing of the award, the appellant company scanned its records and found that the copy of the policy produced by the respondents was a fake and a fraudulent document. Sensing this interpolation and fraud having been committed in respect of the subject document, a review petition came to be filed before the Tribunal contending therein that the award has flowed on the basis of a fraudulent document and, therefore, no benefit can be derived out of it. The Tribunal dismissed the review petition on the ground that no such plea had been taken earlier in the written submissions filed by the company and no document had been placed on record during such period that the claim was adjudicated.
3. Aggrieved of the said order passed in the review petition as also the basic award, the appellant Company has filed this appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the learned Tribunal, while dealing with the review petition, did not provide an opportunity to the appellant company for producing the documents and, instead, came to the conclusion that no new grounds have come to surface. The learned Tribunal ordered the dismissal of the motion by stating in the order that the appellant company had pleaded breach of the policy conditions, therefore, in its estimation it pre-supposes the existence of the policy. Per Contra, the respondent claimants have sought the dismissal of the appeal on two counts, first, that after passing of the interim award recalling motion was filed on the plea that the policy did not exist which was dismissed and that being the position, the appellant Company is estopped in law from contending that the policy was a fraudulent one and, second, that the contention of the appellant company needs to be discarded on the plea of res-judicata as the Tribunal had rejected the recalling motion providing for payment of interim compensation. It is also stated that the plea of the commission of fraud was not known to it till such time that the final award was passed and it was only after passing of the final award that the appellant company noticed that fraud had been committed which necessitated them to file the review petition.
4. Heard and considered.
5. The copy of the policy produced by the respondents depicted that the same was valid from 14th of September, 2006 to 13th of September, 2007 and the premium of Rs. 1050 was also shown to have been deposited on 14th of September, 2006. This document has been brought on record by the appellant Company in a miscellaneous petition bearing MP No. 02/2018. On the perusal of the policy number in relation to the subject vehicle bearing registration No. DL5CA-2117, it came to be noticed that the policy relied upon and produced before the learned Tribunal by the claimants bore the certificate No. 123211 and the policy was shown t........