Dismissed¶7

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baban Babu Vaghere and Anr.

Insurance / Motor Accident Claims – Defence of fake policy

Bombay HC7 Mar 2026FA/650/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, First Appeal No. 650 of 2025 (decided 07 March 2026, R.M. Joshi, J.) - Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Baban Babu Vaghere - appeal by insurer against MACT award of Rs. 4,46,108/- with 7% interest dismissed; fake policy defence fails for want of notice to insured and RTO; pay and recover not ordered; Motor Accidents Claim Petition 1042 of 2017; witness Hemant Gaonkar; premium register; Shahpur Police Station notice; statutory deposit transfer.

What did the court decide?

To succeed in a defence of fake policy, it is obligatory on the insurer to give notice to the insured and also to the RTO; the notice to the insured is necessary to enable him to place appropriate material on record to justify the genuineness of the policy. ¶6

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Baban Babu Vaghere and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

112-FA-650-2025

¶2

Navnath Waghmare (P.A.)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 650 OF 2025

¶5

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd ....Appellant Versus Baban Babu Vaghere And Anr ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sarthak Diwan for the Appellant Mr. T.J. Mendon for the Respondents

¶7

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 07^th March, 2026

¶8

PC:-

¶9

By consent of both sides, heard finally at the

¶10

admission stage.

¶11

This appeal filed by the Insurer takes exception to judgment and award dated 20.09.2024 passed by Tribunal in Motor Accidents Claim Peitition 1042 of 2017, whereby injury claimed to be allowed, directing payment of compensation of Rs. 4,46,108/- along with interest @ 7% per annum.

¶12

Page 1 of 3 07^th March, 2026

¶13

112-FA-650-2025

¶14

Insurer takes exception to the impugned judgment and award on the ground that though the insurer has succeeded in proving its defence on fake policy, tribunal has erred in not accepting the case of the insurer and even refusing to pass order of pay and recover.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the insurer submits that specifc plea was raised before the Tribunal by filing written statement with regard to the take policy. It is further submitted that apart from this raising the said issue, evidence of witness Shri. Hemant Gaonkar, Manager, was led before the Tribunal. It is his submission that apart from oral evidence, the insurer has relied upon the premimum register, notice issued to the Shahpur Police Station with acknowledgement etc. It is his submission that inspite of the said evidence on record, Tribunal erroneously fasten liability of payment of compensation on the insurer.

¶16

Learned counsel for the claimants supports impugned judgment and award.

¶17

Page 2 of 3 07^th March, 2026

¶18

112-FA-650-2025

¶19

There is no doubt the insurer has taken a plea of fake policy in the written statement and also examinied witness. However, cross-examination was conducted on behalf of claimant and admission given by the witness of the insurer indicates that no notice was given to the insurer with regard to the fake policy. So also, there was no communication to the RTO for the correction of the record in respect of insurance policy. Needless to say that in order to succeed in defence of fake policy, it is obligatory on the part of the insurer to give notice to the insured, so also to the RTO. Notice to insurer is necessary in order to enable him to place appropriate material on record to justify the genuineness of the policy. In absence of any such evidence, tribunal committed no error in rejecting the claim of insurer.

¶20

In view of above discussion, there is no merit left in the appeal. Accordingy appeal stands dismissed.

¶21

Statutory deposit be transferred for disposal in accordance with rules.

¶22

Page 3 of 3 07^th March, 2026

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baban Babu Vaghere and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baban Babu Vaghere and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arjun Ananda More vs State of Maharashtra

Hulchal Lalji Garg vs the State of Maharashtra

Sherali Hafiz Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Munazir Nizamuddin Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Swaroop Jeetendra Sawant vs State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Sameer Gulam Husain Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra