Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants.

2. The present Appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2025 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1390 of 2018 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) awarding compensation of Rs.3,05,80,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization with proportionate costs.

3. The facts leading to filing of the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal are that on 26.05.2017 at about 3:30 p.m., the deceased, Mohd.Saifuddin, was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. TS-10-EL-0668. The said motor cycle was being ridden by his college mate, Rizwan Rasool. When they reached near Yenkapally Gate, within the jurisdiction of Moinabad Police Station, the rider of the motor cycle lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the road divider. As a result of the impact, both the rider and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Based on the report lodged, the Police of Moinabad, Cyberabad registered a case vide Crime No. 288 of 2017 under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and took up investigation.

4. The claimants being the parents of the deceased filed Claim Petition initially for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and later, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,50,00,000/- stating that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 21 years, hale and healthy, pursuing his Engineering (CSE) III Year Degree at Global Engineering College of Science and Technology, Moinabad and was a brilliant student, used to earn Rs.50,000/- p.m. by imparting private tuitions and maintain his family members, and due to the sudden demise of deceased, the claimants suffered mental agony and lost love and affection of the deceased. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle having insurance with the respondent No.2 and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said crime vehicle. As such, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- towards compensation to the claimants.

5. The respondent No.1 in the MVOP did not contest the case and remained ex parte. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter- affidavit denying the narration made in the Claim Petition in relation to accident that took place and the involvement of crime vehicle. The Insurance Company stated that there is no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle bearing No.TS-10EL-0668. The respondent No.2 also denied the relationship between the deceased and the claimants. The respondent No.2 contended that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Basing on the above pleadings of both sides, the following issues were framed for trial:

               i) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e. motor cycle bearing No.TS 10 EL 0668?

               ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

               iii) To what relief?

7. In order to prove the case of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2, being the father and mother of the deceased, were examined and documentary evidence under Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked on their behalf. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced. However, documentary evidence under Ex.B.1 – copy of policy was marked.

8. Upon appreciating the pleadings and the evidence, both oral and documentary adduced on behalf of parties, the learned Tribunal held that the cross-examination of PW.1 by the counsel for respondent No.2, except denials nothing is elicited adverse to the version of the claimants and that the documents relied upon by the claimants under Exs.A.1 to A.10 clearly reveal that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident as 21 years as well as the employment Offer Letter of the deceased marked as Ex.A-6, fixed the earnings of the deceased as Rs.24,00,000/- per annum, that means Rs.2,00,000/- p.m.

9. The Tribunal by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v/ s. Delhi Transport Corporation ((2009) 6 SCC 121) wherein it was held that only three factors need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death, viz., (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c ) the number of dependents, and basing on the evidence of PW.1 and documents under Exs.A.1 to A.5, assessed the age of the deceased as 21 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal also observed that the respondents vaguely questioned the truthfulness of the averments and testimonies, but as they did not produce any contrary evidence which would go to diminish the case of the claimants on these vital facts and hence, took the age of the deceased as 21 years.

10. The Tribunal further relying upon the above said judgment applied ‘18’ multiplier. By placing reliance on the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v/ s. Pranay Sethi ((2017) SC 1050), the Tribunal held that 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects which amounts to Rs.2,80,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- x 40%=2,80,000/-). Since the deceased was unmarried, half of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses, which would amount to Rs.1,40,000/- (Rs.2,80,000/- x 1/2). Thus, the loss to the dependents comes to Rs.1,40,000/- per month and Rs.16,80,000/- per annum. Since the appropriate multiplier is 18, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,02,40,000/- (Rs.16,80,000/- x 18) and towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each, 30,000/- and Rs.30,000/-, respectively was awarded. Further, the Tribunal by placing reliance upon the judgment in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v/ s. Nanu Ram , awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection.

11. The Tribunal by placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puttamma and others v/ s. K.L.Narayana Reddy ((2013) 15 SCC 45) and Benson George v/ s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (2022 ACJ 948), awarded interest at 6% per annum. It was finally held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Assailing the said order, the present Appeal is filed by the appellant- Insurance Company.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the claimants obtained the order and decree in their favour by playing fraud on the Court itself. It is further contended that the policy issued to the crime vehicle-motor cycle is an ‘Act/liability only policy’, which does not cover the liability of the person travelling as a pillion rider on the motor cycle, since no premium is paid by the owner to cover the risk of the pillion rider. To support the said contention, he relied upon United India Insurance Company Limited, Shimla v/ s. Tilak Singh ((2006) 4 SCC 404) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even under the 1939 Act the established legal position was that unless there was a specific coverage of the risk pertaining to a gratuitous passenger in the policy, the insurer was not liable.

13. It is pleaded that on the date of accident, the deceased and rider friend were only B.Tech 1styear students, but the claimants contended that the deceased was pursuing his B.Tech III year and got selected in Infosys through campus placement, which is not correct and was only created by forging and manipulating all the documents for the purpose of wrongful compensation.

14. Learned counsel further contended that Ex.A.5 Marks Memo is forged and fabricated and created for the purpose of this case and in order to prove the same, the appellant produced the Identity Card of the deceased with Roll No.16U61A0521 and Bonafide Certificate issued by the Global Institute of Engineering and Technology dated 05.10.2016, which shows that the deceased was pursuing CSE-B.Tech from the year 2016-2020 and the accidental death of the deceased occurred on 26.05.2017, which itself shows that the deceased was pursuing his B.Tech I year as on the date of accident and the contention of the claimants that the deceased was pursuing B.Tech III year at the time of accident is false.

15. Learned counsel further contended that in Ex.A-6 Employment Offer Letter, it is mentioned that ‘Through TATA Consultancy Md.Saifuddin was selected for INFOSYS on a yearly salary of Rs.24,00,000/-”, which is strange as the said two Companies are rival Companies in the Software Industry and cannot select candidates for each other.

16. Learned counsel further submitted that after the receipt of the award and decree and after perusing the document i.e. Ex.A-6 Offer Letter, the Investigator of the appellant-company gathered information and came to know that the Institution like Infosys would never offer such a huge package of Rs.24,00,000/- p.a. for a fresh Graduate, that too from normal level Engineering Colleges situated in Hyderabad. The learned counsel urged that the Investigator of the appellant company gathered information that Infosys had not made any offer to Md.Saifuddin with ID No.57196834, as the candidate registered with the said ID was Mrs.Namrata Biswas of Kolkata, as such, the claimants have made a false claim.

17. Learned counsel averred that only after receipt of the award the appellant company came to know about the fraud played by the claimants and immediately all possible steps have been taken and documents were secured. The non filing of the above said documents at the time of trial is neither willful nor wanton.

18. During pendency of the Appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC is filed by the petitioner/appellant to receive the documents relating to the deceased viz., Md.Saifuddin i.e. (i) copy of College identity card, (ii) Bonafide certificate dated 05.10.2016, (iii) SSC Memo dated 17.05.2013, (iv) Case Dairy Part-II in FIR No.253 of 2017 of Police Station Moinabad, Cyberabad, Hyderabad recording the statements of L.Ws.1 to 6, (v) Ration Card issued to Mohd. Nayeemuddin and his family, (vi) Letter received from Infosys, Bangalore dated 08.10.2025, (vii) RTA Application dated 25.08.2025 and (viii) Investigation Report dated 04.08.2025 and 24.10.2025 contending that the documents now sought to be filed are very much necessary to prove the fraud played by the claimants with the Court and the public institution like the appellant-Insurance Company. On thorough examination of the matter, the said IA was allowed and the documents filed by the appellant are taken on record vide order dated 02.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2026.

19. Learned counsel taking the totality of the circumstances and by reading the statements of LWs.1 to 6 along with additional documentary evidence finally contended that the deceased was studying B.Tech I year at the time of accident without there being any employment and that Ex.A.5 Marks Memo and Ex.A6 Employment Offer Letter are created and concocted and produced only for the purpose of claiming wrongful compensation. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the OP.

20. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Safiq Ahmad v/ s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (SLP (Civil) No.1110 of 2017); Sukh Sagar Medical College and Hospital v/ s. State of Madhya Pradesh ((2021) 13 SCC 587); State of West Bengal v/ s. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (AIR 2025 SC 1882) and mainly in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs. v/ s. Jagannath (dead) by LRs. ((1994) 1 SCC 1), wherein in paras 1, 5 and 6, it was held as under:

               "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree - by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.

               ...The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

               … A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.”

21. On behalf of the claimants, a counter-affidavit is filed denying the averments made by the Insurance Company and contending that though the claim petition was filed on 28.06.2018 and judgment was pronounced on 01.05.2025, till the matter is disposed of, the appellant never raised any tenable and legal defences and the party alleging fraud and misrepresentation has to be specifically pleaded and proved.

22. The respondents further submit that the appellant started the entire exercise only after EP was filed and it is nothing but a high handed attempt. It is contended that the insurer cannot have his own parallel investigation much less after the matter is decided by the competent Court. It is further stated that the appellant was silent throughout the proceedings before the Tribunal and they are so irresponsible and they have simply filed a copy of the policy and no oral evidence was adduced, except Ex.B.1. That apart, the Tribunal even observed in the judgment that the respondents failed to adduce evidence adverse to the version of the claimants with respect to the earnings of the deceased and the age of the deceased. It is finally contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and only to protract the litigation, they filed the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

23. On allowing the application filed for filing of additional documents, the claimants filed additional written arguments stating that in case of any additional document sought to be filed in appeal, the appellant cannot plead any ground on the document sought to be filed in appeal unless and until the objection is allowed and hence, the grounds taken with regard to fraud in the appeal basing on the additional document has to be struck off.

24. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narbada Devi Gupta v/ s. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal (AIR 2004 SC 175) to contend that legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the Court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence that is by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue.

25. Learned counsel also relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sait Tarajee Khimchand v/ s. Yelamarti Satyam (AIR 1971 SC 1865), wherein it was held at para 15 that the mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents.

26. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the claimants also relied upon the decisions in Janabai and others Vs. I .C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance Company Ltd. (2022(5) ALD 76 (SC)), National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maya Devi and others (2025 ACJ 406), The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Lala Pancham and others (AIR 1965 SC 1008) , Arjun Singh Vs. Kartar Singh and others (AIR 1951 SC 193) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Alka Sharma and others 1 (Order in Civil Appeal No.1589 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.6407 of 2000 dt.26.02.2001.).

27. We have given our earnest considerations to the contentions urged on either side, including the authorities referred to by them in their submissions.

28. On examination of the entire material available on record, it is to be noted that the occurrence of the accident dated 26.05.2017 and the resultant death of Mohd. Saifuddin are not in dispute. However, the crucial question that falls for consideration in the present appeal is “Whether the award of the Tribunal is vitiated on account of fraud, misrepresentation and suppression of material facts by the claimants, thereby rendering the same unsustainable in law”.

29. On an appreciation of the evidence, this Court observes that the present appeal is a clear case where systematic and deliberate fraud has been played upon the Tribunal with an intention to secure exorbitant compensation. The fraud is evident from multiple facets of the claim, which strike at the very foundation of the award.

30. First, with regard to the age and educational status of the deceased. The claimants projected that the deceased was aged 21 years and was pursuing B.Tech III year. However, the record submitted by the appellant-Insurance Company including the FIR, statements recorded by the police, and additional documents now brought on record, clearly establish that the deceased was aged about 19 years old and was studying B.Tech I year at the time of the accident. The inconsistency in the year of admission, as reflected in the documents, further goes against the version of the claimants.

31. Second, the employment and income of the deceased have been grossly and fraudulently misrepresented. The Tribunal has based its entire reasoning on Ex.A-6, the alleged employment offer letter, and fixed the income at₹24,00,000/- per annum. However, the material now placed on record conclusively establishes that the said document is fabricated and concocted. The record submitted by the appellant clearly shows that the candidate ID mentioned therein belongs to an entirely different individual. The discrepancies relating to the reference number, the format of the offer, the date of joining falling on a non-working day, and the manner of mentioning salary are all indicative of the document being false and created just to enhance the compensation. This Court believes that Ex.A-6 is a forged document introduced solely for the purpose of claiming higher amount from the appellant company.

32. Third, the conduct of the claimants in shifting their stand regarding income further reinforces the findings of fraud. Initially, it was pleaded that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.10,000/- by imparting tuitions and an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- towards compensation was claimed and later, by way of additional claim, claimed an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- as compensation (amended as per orders passed in I.A.No.1312 of 2021 in O.P.No.1390 of 2018 dated 14.09.2012). The Subsequent claim was drastically enhanced by projecting that the deceased was offered a high-paying corporate employment letter. This sudden and unexplained increase in the amount claimed is a clear indicator of an intentional attempt to mislead the Tribunal.

33. The aforesaid facts and circumstances cumulatively establishes that the claimants have suppressed true facts, introduced false evidence, and deliberately misled the Tribunal on material aspects, namely age, education, and income, which are the very basis for determining compensation.

34. The legal position in this regard is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (9 supra) has categorically held that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law and can be challenged at any stage. Similarly, in Safiq Ahmad (6 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings and no party can be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong.

35. In the recent judgment in United India Insurance Company Limited v/ s. Sayona Colors Private Limited (Civil Appeal No.6100 of 2024 dated 17.03.2026), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

               20. It is a settled principle that fraud vitiates all solemn acts, and no person can be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (9 supra) has categorically held that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law and can be challenged at any stage. Similarly, in A.V. Papayya Sastry v/ s. Government of Andhra Pradesh ((2007) 4 SCC 221 : 2007 SCC OnLine SC 317), it was reiterated that fraud vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam.

               21. Applying the aforesaid principles, we are of the considered view that once it is established that the claim itself is founded on fraud, the entire edifice of the claim collapses and no relief can be granted. Quantification of loss cannot override the foundational requirement of a genuine and bona fide claim.

               22. There is no concept of partial or equitable relief in cases tainted by fraud. Courts and adjudicatory fora cannot grant compensation merely because some loss is shown to have occurred, when the claim itself is vitiated by fraudulent conduct. An insurance contract cannot be used as an instrument of unjust enrichment…

               23. In view thereof, we have no hesitation in holding that the respondent is not entitled to any amount under the policy, and the claim deserves to be rejected in toto.

36. Applying the above principles to the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal, having been founded on false and fabricated material, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

37. Before parting, this Court reiterates that while the law leans in favour of granting just compensation to victims of motor accidents, it does not entertain fraud, fabrication and misuse of judicial process. A litigant who approaches the Court must do so with clean hands and any attempt to secure relief by fraud must be dealt with strictly.

38. This Court is also of the firm view that the present case warrants imposition of costs, as the claimants have attempted to abuse the process of law by fabricating evidence and misleading the Tribunal. However, in the interests of justice and exercising judicial restraint, we refrain ourselves from burdening the claimants with costs.

39. Accordingly, the MACMA is allowed and the award dated 01.05.2025 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1390 of 2018 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad is set aside. Thereby, the appellant–insurance company is absolved from its liability arising out of the said award. The amount deposited by the appellant before the learned Tribunal shall be refunded to it along with accrued interest within a period of four (04) weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.