Dismissed¶28

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sampath

Madras HC4 Jun 2025CMA/1354/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CMA No. 1354 of 2025 & CMP No. 11516 of 2025 (decided 04-06-2025), Justice T.V. Thamilselvi. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Sampath and G. Selvaraj; appeal under Sec.173 Motor Vehicles Act against award dated 20.11.2024 in MCOP No. 1899 of 2016 (accident 06.02.2016; claimed Rs.6,00,000/-; awarded Rs.1,49,000/-). Insurer alleged fake policy (Ex.R5) but delayed: no plea in 13.10.2019 counter, police complaint only in 2023, no expert opinion obtained. Findings held sustainable; appeal dismissed, no costs; insurer held liable to pay compensation.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's findings that the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation are sustainable and need no interference; accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. ¶28

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sampath — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the policy (marked Ex.R5) relied upon by the petitioner is a fake policy, so that the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the 06.02.2016 accident.

¶23

Court's answer

The Tribunal's findings that the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation are sustainable and need no interference; accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Although the appellant disputes that the policy is fake, it took no steps to send the policy (Ex.R5) for expert opinion, and without such verification the Court is unable to conclude that the policy is fake.

¶28

Key takeaways

If the policy were genuinely fake, the appellant ought to have acted much earlier; it acted nearly 8 years after the 2016 accident, undermining its fake-policy plea (no plea in the 13.10.2019 counter, none during investigation, online police complaint only in 2023 with no follow-up).ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Claims — Insurer's appeal dismissed; Tribunal's award upheld. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd appealed (under Sec.173, Motor Vehicles Act) against the award dated 20.11.2024 in MCOP No.1899 of 2016 (Special Sub Court No.1, MACP, Small Causes Court, Chennai), whereby the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,49,000/- to claimant Sampath (who had claimed Rs.6,00,000/- for injuries in an accident of 06.02.2016), asserting the petitioner had submitted a fake policy implicating the insurer. The Court observed that the insurer raised no fake-policy plea in its counter filed 13.10.2019, nor when an investigation officer was appointed; its first action was an online complaint to the police only in 2023, with no follow-up — nearly 8 years after the accident. Though Ex.R5 bears the company seal and an authorised officer's signature, the insurer never sent the policy for expert opinion; absent such verification, the Court was unable to conclude the policy is fake. Holding the Tribunal's findings sustainable and requiring no interference, the Madras High Court (T.V.Thamilselvi J., 04-06-2025) dismissed the appeal with no costs and closed the connected CMP No. 11516 of 2025.

¶1

CMA No. 1354 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-06-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CMA No. 1354 of 2025

¶7

AND

¶8

CMP NO. 11516 OF 2025

¶9

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd Chottabai Centre, 2nd Floor, No.140, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 34.

¶10

Appellant

¶11

¶12

Sampath

¶13

2.G. Selvaraj

¶14

Respondents

¶15

PRAYER :- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Sec.173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying to set aside the order dated 20.11.2024 made in MCOP No.1899 of 2016 Special Sub Court No.1, Motor Accidents Claims Petitions, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

¶16

For Appellant: Mr. Siva Kollapan B

¶17

1/5

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

CMA No. 1354 of 2025

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellant, who is the 2nd respondent in a claim petition filed in M.C.O.P.No. 1899 of 2016, challenging the award passed by the Tribunal, had preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶22

Before the tribunal, the Claim Petition was filed by the 1st respondent/petitioner claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor took place on 06.02.2016. On hearing both sides, the tribunal passed an award for a sum of Rs.1,49,000/-. Against which, the appellant insurance company preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶23

The learned counsel for appellant would submit that by submitting fake policy, the petitioner filed the above claim petition by using the appellant as 2nd respondent as if his motorcycle vehicle was registered with the appellant insurance company. Though objections raised before the Tribunal, the learned Judge has not appreciated the evidence adduced on the side of appellant/2nd respondent before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant prayed to set aside the findings of the tribunal as it is perverse and erroneous one.

¶24

The main objections raised on the side of appellant is that the policy relied on by the petitioner is a fake policy and they have also produced the said policy marked as Ex.R5. On a bare perusal of records, the fact reveals that the accident was happened in the year of 2016 and the counter objections

¶25

2/5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

CMA No. 1354 of 2025

¶28

was filed by the appellant/2nd respondent Insurance Company before the Tribunal on 13.10.2019, but there is no such allegation regarding fake policy mentioned in the counter objections. Thereafter, the investigation officer is also appointed to enquire about the accident, even at that time the plea of fake policy was not raised. Only in the year of 2023, an online complaint was given by the appellant Insurance Company to the police regarding fake policy. Thereafter, there was no follow-up. Hence, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. If at all, the policy is fake, the appellant ought to have taken steps much earlier, since the accident was happened in the year 2016 and nearly about 8 years later, they have taken steps to prove that it is a fake policy. On a bare perusal of Ex.R5, there is a seal of insurance company along with the signature of authorised officer. If the appellant insurance company is disputing the policy is fake, they ought to have taken steps to send the policy for obtaining expert opinion, but no steps taken, without which the Court is unable to conclude that it is a fake policy. Therefore, the findings rendered by the Tribunal is sustainable one, which needs no interference. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as no merit. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶29

04-06-2025

¶30

3/5

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

CMA No. 1354 of 2025

¶33

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No rpp To 1. Special Sub-Court No.1, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

¶34