Planted drivers, witnesses: Ambala lawyer takes courts for a ride over mishap claims

A CBI Special Judicial Magistrate’s court in Panchkula has taken 17 years to convict 15 people for forging documents, impersonating people and planting chauffeurs of vehicles as well as the vehicles themselves to obtain compensations from insurance firms in motor accident claim cases. Nine of the accused died during the endless trial.

The court revealed an elaborate scheme in which a group of lawyers and their associates, like clerks and munshis, manipulated the Motor Accident Claim Tribunals (MACTs) — which is presided over by session judges — to give compensations in hit-and-run cases.

The modus operandi was simple enough. Vehicles that had nothing to do with the accidents were used by the scamsters to claim compensation from hit-and-run cases — the mishaps were real, just that the vehicles involved were different, while the drivers of the vehicles and the witnesses were planted.

The CBI investigated only 25 such motor accident claim cases, although the then Ambala district judge — the first anonymous complaint in the matter had come from Ambala as long back as April 2002 — said that the scam may run into “hundreds of cases.”

The total compensation in these 25 cases investigated by the CBI amounted to Rs 1.11 crore, although with a nine per cent increase in interest, the amount goes up to approximately Rs 1.5 crore.

Significantly, one factor was common in all the compensation cases — they were all filed through advocate SPS Chauhan, who also hailed from Ambala.

Over 17 years, which is how long the trial took, and after the deposition of as many as 107 prosecution witnesses, CBI Special Judicial Magistrate Anil Kumar Yadav sentenced Chauhan, his junior VP Kaushal and two to three-year rigorous imprisonment on November 11. Another 11 persons were also sentenced to six-month imprisonment on the same day.

Origin of investigation and CBI probe

The story began with a letter to the Punjab and Haryana High Court on April 6, 2002. One Bhagat Ram of Ambala complained to the high court that advocate SPS Chauhan was earning crores by arranging “hired” vehicles and drivers in hit-and-run cases to make insurance companies pay the awarded amount through MACTs.

Ram alleged that Chauhan had the support of judicial officers, who were allegedly attracted by financial incentives and the free use of his fleet of cars. Ram also claimed that Chauhan was getting “crore of rupees award from insurance companies”.

According to Bhagat Ram's letter to the court, Chauhan was “filing ninety percent fake cases and getting cent percent results”.

The high court responded by directing the Ambala district judge to investigate. In May 2002, the district judge reported that the cause lists of different motor accident claim courts in Ambala in January of the same year showed, that on an average, about 26 claim cases per day were listed which featured advocate Chauhan. The Ambala district judge noted that his own court had two claims pending in which the same driver and vehicle were implicated.

In August 2003, the high court authorised a discreet inquiry into motor accident claims filed between January 2001 and January 2002. The Ambala district judge found over 15 vehicles involved in multiple cases, with their registration numbers absent from original FIRs but “introduced later on, either by the police or at the time of filing the petitions”. In 138 cases, claim petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. In all these cases Chauhan or his junior advocates represented the claimants.

The district judge concluded that “such a large number of withdrawals” by Chauhan suggested the cases were “false”, and the repeated use of “at least 15 vehicles in multiple cases” indicated that he had access to certain vehicles and drivers, who were on call, in collusion with the police. To further investigate possible collusion involving “police officers, judicial officers, or doctors”, he recommended a probe by an investigating agency.

This prompted the high court to assign the case to a judicial Bench in April 2004. On April 19, a Bench led by then Chief Justice BK Roy ordered a CBI investigation.

In August 2006, after two years, CBI inspectors Balbir Singh and IMS Negi filed the first chargesheet detailing the alleged scheme. According to the CBI, Chauhan and his associates approached accident victims’ families, offering to handle their claims for free. They fabricated evidence by planting unrelated drivers, vehicles, and witnesses, often with forged documents to support the claims.

Addresses in the claim files were often falsified to conceal the real identities of claimants, drivers, vehicle owners, and witnesses. They allegedly pocketed 25%-50% of the settlement amounts. A supplementary chargesheet followed in 2007.

The CBI ultimately investigated 25 motor accident claim cases filed from 1997 to 2001, involving compensations over Rs 1.11 crore, and charged 30 people, including Chauhan and his associates, and some claimants. Neither the judicial officers were charged nor police officials were made the accused. A few of the judicial officers even rose to become high court judges later.

Notable fraud claim cases

Among the cases investigated was that of Randhir Singh, an auto driver who died in 1999 in Thanesar, Kurukshetra. After initially declaring the accident untraceable, head constable Dharampal reopened the case a month later, implicating Hazura Singh, a Mahindra Jeep driver, with a witness named Didar Singh introduced to claim he had seen the incident. However, the New India Assurance Company denied the accident in its statement.

The MACT awarded Randhir’s widow Rs 4.05 lakh, but later, Hazura Singh cooperated with the CBI and became an approver, denying any involvement in the accident. He claimed that Sukhwinder Singh, a clerk of SPS Chauhan, had taken his signature on plain paper for submission to a Kurukshetra police station and paid him Rs 4,000 for attending court proceedings.

During the CBI trial proceedings, Didar Singh testified that he had neither witnessed the accident nor testified before the MACT in Ambala. Another individual, Manjit Singh, admitted to impersonating Didar Singh in Ambala on the direction of Chauhan.

In the claim case of Dyal Kaur vs Gurdev Mohan, compensation was sought for a 1998 accident involving Ram Kishan and his servant Chanda Singh, reportedly struck by an unidentified vehicle. A police head constable, Purshottam Dass, who was investigating the case, planted a canter truck and its driver, Gurdev Mohan, based on false testimony.

Compensation of Rs 9.96 lakh and Rs 2.57 lakh was awarded to the victims’ families. However, the CBI later discovered that Chanda Singh’s widow, Dyal Kaur, had died in 2001, and another woman had impersonated her in court and at the bank to withdraw the money.

During the CBI court trial, Gurdev Mohan admitted he was falsely introduced as a driver and was paid Rs 5,000 by Rampal, a clerk of Chauhan’s, and acknowledged his vehicle was involved in another hit-and-run case too for Rs 10,000.

Similarly, in the Jarnail Singh vs Pardeep Kumar claim case, the CBI found that Karnail Singh impersonated Jarnail Singh to claim compensation for injuries supposedly sustained in a 1999 accident. In reality, Karnail had been injured on a farm, and his co-claimant, Balbir Khan, had been injured in a mule cart accident. Both claimed to have received treatment at Mann Hospital, Ambala, and were awarded Rs 1.41 lakh and Rs 93,334, respectively, based on a fabricated accident.

In the Vipin Kumar vs Ram Singh claim case, the CBI discovered that Vipin Kumar’s actual accident occurred between Saharanpur and Sarsawa in 1999 when the tyre of his Armada jeep burst. However, for the motor accident claim, he alleged he was struck by a motorcycle while riding a bicycle in Ambala.

The CBI court was informed by Ram Singh, who was listed as the offending driver, that he was not involved in the accident and had been implicated by his friend Naresh Goel, an associate of Chauhan. Vipin Kumar’s claim petition included a thumb impression despite him being literate.

These cases revealed a pattern of fraud involving staged accidents, forged documents, and falsified testimonies, with compensations awarded on bogus claims.

The drama did not end during the CBI trial either. Five people who were either Chauhan’s associates or claimants became CBI approvers and were granted pardons but they didn't support the CBI version during the trial and resiled from their statements. However, it didn’t impact the final outcome.

The CBI judge pointed out the offending vehicles were traced in all hit-and-run cases, which reportedly occurred at night, despite untraced police reports, and in all cases, claims were filed through Chauhan.

Defence and judicial response

Chauhan in his defence questioned why the investigating officers from the Haryana and Punjab Police were not charged as in actually they introduced the alleged offending vehicles and drivers in the case. The CBI Magistrate acknowledged that “undoubtedly, it is a mistake on the part of the CBI”.

Chauhan also pointed out that the awards passed by MACTs have never been set aside by the Hon’ble High Court nor has any award been remanded back to the MACT concerned. The CBI Magistrate replied that “civil and criminal proceedings are independent and separate in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”.

He added that the insurance company did have the right to challenge the motor accident awards on the ground of fraud by moving an application before the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, however, that right was not exercised.

“But even then, every citizen of India is at liberty to bring the criminal machinery into motion in case of commission of cognisable offence. In this case, serious allegations were made by moving a complaint to the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court was pleased to pass an order directing CBI to carry out the investigation,” said the CBI Magistrate.