3 forge docus for Rs 2cr insurance claim, in trouble

Salem: A court hearing a motor accident claim has directed officials of an insurance firm to lodge a case against three people – a vehicle owner, a translator and an eye witness - for distorting facts and raising a false claim. The judge also asked the Hasthampatty police inspector to initiate criminal proceedings against them.

A source with the special court for the Motor Claims Tribunal Original Petition (MCOP) said Vijayakumari, 29, wife of R Ayyanar, 32, of Sarkar Nattamangalam near Vazhapadi had moved the court seeking a compensation of Rs 2 crore from the insurance firm New India Assurance Company Limited, stating her husband had died in a road accident on March 4, 2018 and he was the sole breadwinner of the family.

The petition said Ayyanar was returning home in a sports utility vehicle (SUV) from Anandapura in Dhavanagere district in Karnataka, where he had gone for rig work along with his brother R Loganathan, when the vehicle rammed a roadside tree near Benkikere village on Simoca-Sannagiri National Highway. “The pliant said the accident occurred when Ayyanar, who was at the wheel, tried to avoid hitting a stray dog and succumbed to his injuries on the spot,” the source said. The Chennagiri police in Karnataka had registered the case and held an inquiry.

Advocate K V Hemalatha, who appeared for the insurance firm, argued that the petition was false, frivolous and not sustainable in law. She said the manner of the accident as narrated in the petition was not correct.

“The postmortem report clearly shows there were no external injuries to the deceased and the cause of death was cardiac arrest and not road accident.” It was later proved that Loganathan, the owner of the SUV, had submitted some fake documents, including copy of the first information report that was prepared by the Chennagiri police, with the support of translator J Sudha, of Bhavani in Erode district.

“Sudha twisted facts while translating documents to Tamil from Kannada. He also set up an eyewitness named Viswanathan, who told the court that he was also in the vehicle at the time of the accident. “However, Viswanathan too hadn’t sustained any injury. Besides, RTO officials had in their inspection report clearly stated that the SUV had only minor damages,” the advocate said.

After hearing both the sides, judge S Raju came to a conclusion that the petitioners had made up the incident to receive compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. “The incident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and not as mentioned in the petition,” he said in the order.