E-Paper
MACT Pune dismisses ‘fabricated’ accident claim, flags nexus between cops, vehicle owner
The tribunal made it clear that while the death of the victim was real, the alleged involvement of the motorcycle cited in the claim was fabricated
In a strongly-worded judgment that raises concerns over fraudulent motor accident claims, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Pune has dismissed a plea for compensation filed by a widow, holding it to be a ‘planted’ claim involving manipulation of evidence and possible collusion with the police and the vehicle owner.
Delivering the order on April 17, 2026, MACT member H M Bhosale ruled, “The present claim is the outcome of mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner. She has planted this vehicle by joining hands with respondent number 1 and the police authorities.”
The tribunal made it clear that while the death of the victim was real, the alleged involvement of the motorcycle cited in the claim was fabricated. “It is true that the victim has died due to a dash by some unknown vehicle… However, the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration number MH14HH0881, was not involved in the accident. This vehicle has been planted,” the order stated.
The case pertains to a claim filed by Mangal Baban Hundare, widow of Baban Hundare, who died in November 2020 in a road accident in Khed taluka of Pune district. The petitioner sought compensation of ₹15 lakh under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming that her husband was hit by a motorcycle being driven in a rash and negligent manner. However, after examining oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal concluded that the petitioner failed to prove the involvement of the motorcycle mentioned in the claim.
Coming down heavily on the manner in which the case was pursued, the tribunal further observed, “After detailed analysis… except the bare statement of the petitioner, there is no iota of evidence. This statement is an afterthought story… the delay is neither explained nor can be considered as genuine. This is an afterthought FIR lodged by joining hands with respondent number 1 to get the compensation.”
The crucial factor in dismissing the widow’s plea for compensation was the unexplained delay of nearly 25 days in lodging the first information report (FIR). The tribunal noted that the family was aware of the alleged vehicle number and the rider’s identity since the day of the accident but no complaint was lodged immediately. Further, discrepancies emerged in police records. Initial records indicated involvement of a different motorcycle (MH14HH0581) whereas later, another vehicle (MH14HH0881) was introduced without any proper investigation or explanation.
The tribunal accepted the insurance company’s contention that the vehicle had been ‘planted’ to claim compensation. The petitioner was not an eyewitness and relied entirely on police papers and statements allegedly made by the victim during treatment. The tribunal found this insufficient, especially since the accident had occurred at night and the victim had been hit from behind.
The tribunal reasoned that under such circumstances, it was unlikely that the victim could have identified either the rider or the vehicle number. The insurance company argued that the case was essentially a ‘hit and run’ incident and that the petitioner should have sought compensation under the special provisions applicable to such cases, rather than filing a fault-based claim.
The MACT order stated, “With regard for the note taken by the apex court as well as the parent high court of this menace of filing false and fake claims, this practice needs to be curbed. It is a legitimate expectation that the parties shall approach the tribunal bona fide. The tendency to file false claims is not only harmful to insurance companies but is a stigma on the institution in entertaining and dealing with such false claims. If such a tendency is allowed to develop or grow, it will certainly damage the image of the institution in the eyes of the society.”
