Expert body formed to cleanse rampant fake claims

Noting that duplication of claims owing to the role of intermediaries was huge and around 353 such instances have come forth from just 5 insurance companies as a sample, Justice P N Prakash said, “Misuse of beneficial jurisdiction is anathema to basic principles of natural and social justice. There are far too many infirmities in place to wink or avoid a surgery. It may be too late if this opportunity is missed out for any reason. The victims deserve just compensation and they need the system to be cleansed for their sake.”

“Yielding to such larger public interest, this Court would unhesitatingly order the constitution of an expert body and accordingly, this Court is inclined to appoint Justice K Chandru (Retd.) to head the same and provide the report that may usher in a dispensation worthy of the intent of the Parliament,” he added.

Also, on directing the state, police, Judiciary, insurance companies, Transport Corporations and Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to fully cooperate and assist Justice Chandru in providing requisite services to enable him to complete his report, spelt out as many as six aspects as terms of reference for he expert body to go into.

The terms of reference included, to examine if duplicate claims in respect of the same accident are a widespread phenomenon in this state and reveal the absence of knowledge of how their own claims are pursued and who their counsel are. If so, is there any evidence to suggest that briefs are sold to counsel for monetary

consideration?

The judge also sought the body to suggest means of securing better access to information regarding motor accidents, promoting settlement culture in the responses of insurance companies towards compensation claims, devise ways of elimination of middlemen and ensure in-built mechanism for making the compensation easily available to the victim’s family, proforma for application that could help Motor Accident Claims Tribunals to elicit the requisite details for processing claims with minimal needs for oral evidence and prepare templates for shorter judgments and quicker disposal with just adequate details with standardised formats for death and injury cases respectively.