Bengaluru: Suspecting a possible conspiracy to obtain compensation from an insurance company by fabricating the circumstances of a 16-year-old accident, the Karnataka High Court has ordered a fresh police investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT).Justice Geetha K B, while dismissing an appeal filed by accident claimant Giridhar Pai, directed the Inspector General of Police, Western Range, Mangaluru, to constitute an SIT and submit its report within three months. The court also imposed a Rs 10,000 cost on Pai.The case dates back to September 15, 2010, when Pai, a resident of Mandanageri village in Kumta taluk of Uttara Kannada, claimed he was seriously injured after the motorcycle on which he was riding pillion lost control and overturned near Shiroor village on the Ankola-Kumta road.The motorcycle belonged to his father, Neelakant Pai, who had lent it to Nagappa Pundalik Pai, a fellow villager. Giridhar sought Rs 15 lakh in compensation, claiming he had been hospitalised for 20 days.United India Insurance Company, however, disputed the claim and alleged that the vehicle had been falsely implicated in the accident.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kumta rejected the claim on November 28, 2016. Giridhar then approached the High Court.After examining the records, Justice Geetha agreed with the tribunal’s decision and found several circumstances that cast serious doubt on Giridhar’s version of the accident.One of the key discrepancies concerned the first complaint. The complainant had named Giridhar and given his address, stating that he was the rider of the motorcycle. About a month later, however, the complainant gave a further statement claiming that he had learnt that Giridhar was only a pillion rider after meeting him at Vivekananda Hospital.The problem, the judge noted, was that Giridhar had not been admitted to the hospital on the date on which the complainant claimed to have met him.The court also noted that Nagappa, who was subsequently projected as the rider and possessed a valid driving licence, entered the picture only about a month after the accident. Until then, Giridhar himself had been treated as the suspected rider.The judge further found Giridhar’s account of how he allegedly became a pillion rider that night difficult to accept. His claim that Nagappa left him by the roadside in the middle of the night and returned to his village in a truck was also described as unusual and lacking credibility.The court observed that the material on record gave sufficient reason to doubt the claim and pointed towards the possibility of collusion between the claimant, his father and the alleged rider to secure compensation from the insurer.Justice Geetha held that the tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim petition and directed the police to conduct a fresh investigation into the circumstances surrounding the accident and the subsequent claim.
