Motor Accident Insurance Claims
Three advocates who had filed reproduction insurance claims for the same motor accident case were these days suspended from practice for a 5-yr term by a disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (TN Bar council). The three advocates are A Raveendran, A Jeyakumar, and M Murugan.
Their transgressions had to start with come to light final yr while the coverage corporation approached the Madras High Court. The case subsequently triggered Justice PN Prakash to reproduce motor accident coverage claims rampant inside the motor case authentic petition (MCOP) discipline.
While handling the problem, Justice Prakash had also ordered the TN Bar Council to provoke disciplinary movement towards three advocates found to be involved within the racket.
Accordingly, a TN Bar Council disciplinary committee comprising Chairman R Singaravelan and Members S Ilamvaluthi and Ravi Shanmugam ordered word to the three advocates, in addition to one, S Stephen, who had surpassed over the case brief to the three advocates.
The listening to unearthed a lurid story related to unofficial tip-offs via law enforcement officials, an unqualified middleman, and advocates who have been clueless that they had been handling a case brief that was already being held through others. Amidst all of this, the unique claimants had been observed to have by no means met any of the advocates dealing with their case.
The TN Bar Council turned into apprised that the “Kingpin” at the back of the complete affair, Stephen was accustomed to having a motor twist of fate insurance cases noted him with the aid of the police as and when they came about. Stephen had admitted that he becomes neither an advocate nor a suggest clerk. As submitted before the Madras High Court and the TN Bar Council, Stephen became an 8th-grade skip who used to paintings as a clerk with an Advocate. However, he later left the process for fitness motives.
After leaving this function, he went directly to grow to be an intermediary of types when submitting the motor twist of fate coverage claims. Stephen instructed the TN Bar Council that he could be contacted via the police after motor accidents. The police would then entrust him cases, alongside the automobile quantity, so that he ought to then have interaction and endorse of his desire. In his affidavit earlier than the High Court, Stephen additionally noted that he was doing such work for about 12 months.
The same habitual change into observed to have been followed in the instantaneous case before the TN Bar Council committee. After Mohan is handed away in a motor twist of fate, Stephen becomes tipped off via the police officers worried. Stephen then contacted the son of the deceased, posing as advice. To this quit, he also provided a touring card beneath the name of “Advocate Suryaprakashan.
After acquiring the son’s signature, he then handed over the case brief to the three advocates. In turn, the three advocates, without having met the claimants or accomplishing any further verification, blindly filed three separate MCOP cases on behalf of the two sons of the deceased and the spouse of the deceased (claimants). At no factor became the car, which caused the twist of fate identified to make a right claim.
During the hearing earlier than the committee, the son of the deceased also deposed that he had in no way met any of the advocates who had truly filed the MCOP claims on his behalf. Instead, he knew that Stephen had received his signature on the MCOP petition and a vakalat, which had numerous clean entries at the time of signing. In my view, the son also identified Stephen during the committee listening as the person who had acquired his signature.
In this real backdrop, the committee framed the charge in opposition to the three advocates as follows, “That without even seeing the claimants, you, the Respondents 1 to 3 have filed three MCOPs for the equal twist of fate through concerning the automobile no longer involved inside the twist of fate as in step with the commands of the tout CW 2 and as a consequence…devoted professional misconduct.”