M/S Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2026)

M/S Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal disposed with the award modified: the 6th respondent (vehicle owner) is liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal; the respondents may withdraw the amount already deposited by the appellant as apportioned by the Tribunal; the appellant is entitled to recover that amount from the 6th respondent with the Tribunal-awarded interest till realization; the connected Miscellaneous Petition (CMP No. 5382 of 2020) is closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Ex.P3 insurance policy was a forged/interpolated document, so as to absolve the appellant-insurer of the liability fixed on it by the Tribunal to pay the compensation awarded. +1 more

Court's answer

The appellant failed to substantiate its plea that Ex.P3 was a forged policy: before the Tribunal it produced no documents to show that the policy had been given only with validity till 18.07.2012, nor did it attempt to lead any evidence testing the said policy.

Ratio / Principle

The Motor Vehicles' Inspector's report marked as Ex.R5 indicates that the vehicle had a valid insurance policy which correlates with Ex.P3, and no attempt was made by the appellant before the Trial Court to entirely discredit Ex.P3.

Key takeaways

Since the policy had been issued on 18.07.2011, a presumption could be drawn that it could not have been issued at a much later date; the appellant, having failed to substantiate its contention before the Tribunal, cannot be allowed to contest the award made as early as 2016.ratio¶41
It is the duty of the 6th respondent (vehicle owner) to substantiate that there was a valid insurance for him to be indemnified by the appellant company; accordingly, the appellant, which had deposited the amount, is entitled to recover it from the 6th respondent.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Insurer's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Tribunal's award dated 07-03-2016 in M.C.O.P. No. 802 of 2013 (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri) in a fatal accident claim of Rs.10 lakhs, where liability had been fixed on the insurer on the strength of policy Ex.P3. The insurer contended that Ex.P3 was fraudulent/interpolated — allegedly issued on 19.07.2011 yet shown valid from 02.05.2012 to 01.05.2013, whereas the genuine policy ran from 19.07.2011 to 18.07.2012. Held: the insurer produced no documents and led no evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate the forgery plea; the Motor Vehicles' Inspector's report (Ex.R5) showed the vehicle had valid insurance correlating with Ex.P3; as the policy bore an issue date of 18.07.2011, a presumption arose that it could not have been issued at a much later date; the insurer, having failed to substantiate its case, could not be allowed to contest the 2016 award. The vehicle owner (6th respondent) had remained ex parte before the Tribunal and this Court. Award modified: the 6th respondent is liable to pay the compensation as awarded; the claimants may withdraw the amount deposited by the insurer as apportioned by the Tribunal; the insurer is entitled to recover that amount from the 6th respondent with the Tribunal-awarded interest till realization. Appeal disposed; connected CMP closed; no costs. (Single judge: K.Kumaresh Babu J.; decided 13-03-2026.)

CMA No. 837 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

CMA No. 837 of 2020 and CMP No. 5382 of 2020

M/s.ICICI Lombard General

Insurance Company Ltd., 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, (Near) Siddhi Vinayagar Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025.

..Appellant(s)

Vs.

Dhanalakshmi

Arunkumar

Soundarya

Minor Gokul

S/o. Late Govindaraj (minor 4^th Respondent Rep By Next Friend/Mother Dhanalakshmi 1^st Petitioner Herein).

Senniammal

6. Tharalamary

..Respondent(s)

Prayer : This Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 07-03-2016 in M.C.O.P. No. 802 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) at Krishnagiri.

For Appellant(s): M/s.R.Sree Vidhya For Respondent(s): Ms.K.Vijayalakshmi For M/s.Dasi and Viswa Associates (R1 to R5) No appearance for R6 (Not ready in notice)

__________ Page1 of 6

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

CMA No. 837 of 2020

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07-03-2016 in M.C.O.P. No. 802 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) at Krishnagiri.

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondents 1 to 5 herein had instituted a Motor Accidents Claim Petition seeking for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs that arose due to the fatal accident involving the vehicle belonging to the 6^th respondent, which had been insured with the appellant. She would submit that the 6^th respondent/ vehicle owner remained exparte before the Tribunal and the Tribunal placing reliance upon Ex.A3 viz., the insurance policy issued by the appellant had fixed the liability on the appellant to pay the compensation awarded by it. She would further submit that the said insurance policy produced as Ex.P3 was contested by the appellant as being a fraudulent one, as there had been interpolation in the the said policy as produced. Holding that it is the onus on the appellant to substantiate that the policy is the fraudulent policy,that has been produced before the Court, without analysing the reasons that had been raised by the appellant to contend that the said policy is the fraudulent policy had directed payment of the compensation by the appellant.

__________ Page2 of 6

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

CMA No. 837 of 2020

Taking this Court to the policy marked as Ex.P3, she would submit that

the alleged policy is claimed to have been issued on 19.07.2011 but it is claimed to have been valid from 02.05.2012 to 01.05.2013. She would submit that the

same is the interpolation made and therefore, the policy itself was fake.

Further, drawing attention to the other terms of the policy, she would submit the policy was produced that was valid from 19.07.2011, which would expire only in 18.07.2012 and therefore, such a policy had at any rate could not have a validity from 02.05.2012 till 01.05.2013 as reflected in Ex.P3. Therefore, the Court wholly erred in fixing the liability on the appellant. Hence, she seeks indulgence in the orders impugned.

Countering her arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the first to fifth respondents would submit that the appellant has not denied issuance of the policy of the 6^th respondent’s vehicle nor had produced any contrary evidence that the vehicle had not been insured with it. She would further submit that the amount that had already been deposited by the appellant and the appellant cannot be said to be prejudiced. They are permitted to withdraw the said amount with the right to the appellant to recover the same from the 6^th respondent. Hence, she prays this Court not to grant any indulgence on the amount awarded.

__________ Page3 of 6

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

CMA No. 837 of 2020

I have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing on

either side. I have also gone through the materials placed on record.

Even though it is claimed by the appellant that the Ex.P3 is a forged document, the appellant before the Tribunal had not produced any documents to substantiate the said policy had been given only with the validity till 18.07.2012 nor had attempted to lead in any evidence testing the said policy.

The Motor Vehicles’ Inspector’s report, which had been marked as Ex.R5 would also indicate that the said vehicle had valid insurance policy, which correlates with Ex.P3. No attempt had been made by the appellant before the Trial Court to entirely discredit Ex.P3. However, a perusal of the aforesaid document would indicate that the said policy had been issued on 18.07.2011 and a presumption could be drawn that the policy could not have been issued at a much later date. The appellant having failed to substantiate before the Tribunal of the said fact cannot be allowed to contest that the award itself is bad. The award had been made as early as in the year 2016 and the family of the deceased had been suffering from the loss of dependency that arose due to death of the deceased in the accident.

__________ Page4 of 6

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

CMA No. 837 of 2020

Considering the fact that the appellant, who had deposited the amount are entitled for the recovery of the amount from the 6^th respondent as it is the duty of the 6^th respondent to substantiate that there was a valid insurance for him to indemnify from the appellant company.

The 6^th respondent had remained exparte before the Tribunal and also before this Court. In such event, the award stands modified holding that the 6^th respondent is liable to pay the award of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. However, as the appellant had already deposited the award amount into the Court, the respondents are permitted to withdraw the same as apportioned by the Tribunal and the appellant is entitled to recover the same from the 6^th respondent with the interest awarded by the Tribunal till the date of its realization.

With the above observations, the award stands modified as indicated above. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No order as to costs.

13-03-2026

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

Maya

Page5 of 6

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

CMA No. 837 of 2020

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

Maya

To

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) at Krishnagiri.

CMA No. 837 of 2020

Dated : 13-03-2026

__________ Page6 of 6

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