The Madras High Court has summoned seven lawyers to appear before it and explain their alleged involvement in multiple motor accident insurance claims for same accidents, after an expert body recommended action against them.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

Justice P N Prakash, before whom the cases of multiple claims of insurance came up for hearing on Thursday, passed the interim order after perusing the report of the body headed by retired judge K Chandru.

The report said the body culled out from records names of the seven advocates and recommended immediate action against them for involvement in the fake Motor Claims Tribunal Original Petition (MCOP) claim cases.

The body, appointed by the court on July 19 to inquire into the menace of multiple insurance claims for the same accident, had examined 353 cases, related to compensation claim totalling Rs 60.71 crore, and received responses from 150 advocates or claimants.

It pointed out that after coming to know of the inquiry, around 70 such cases involving a total claim amount of Rs 8.90 crore, have been either withdrawn or dismissed as not pressed.

The judge said though the expert body had suggested suspension of the seven advocates from practice, the court did not want to resort to such an extreme step nor it wanted to refer their matter to the Bar Council without affording them an opportunity to explain their stance.

This apart, counsel for one of the private vehicle insurance companies, submitted that though details of the proceedings had been given to five public sector insurance firms, none of them bothered to represent themselves before the expert body.

Watch Zee Business Tweet video here:

Recording the submission, the judge said, "Perhaps, they too have enough skeletons in their cupboard, which they do not want the world to know.

"It should be borne in mind that they are the custodians of public wealth and they cannot be permitted to sweep the dirt under the carpet and sleep as if nothing is affecting them," the judge said.

During the previous hearing, the judge had come down on the manner in which advocates handled MCOP cases, some of them even signing case papers brought by touts without even seeing the parties.