2026:MHC:1896C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 25.02.2026

Pronounced on : 04.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

and

C.M.P(MD)No.6508 of 2020

Tata AIG Insurance Company Limited,

Through its Divisional Manager,

Chennai. ... Appellant/2

nd

Respondent

Vs.

1.Thangam,

W/o.Late.Kannan,

Door No.687, North Street,

Arunachalampatti Kadaiyam,

Ambasamudram Taluk,

Tirunelveli District.

2.Minor. Ponsingh,

S/o.Late.Kannan,

Door No.687, North Street,

Arunachalampatti Kadaiyam,

Ambasamudram Taluk,

Tirunelveli District.

3.Minor.Selvin,

S/o.Late.Kannan,

Door No.687, North Street,

Arunachalampatti Kadaiyam,

Ambasamudram Taluk,

Tirunelveli District.

1/15

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

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

4.Minor.Sanjay,

S/o.Late.Kannan,

Door No.687, North Street,

Arunachalampatti Kadaiyam,

Ambasamudram Taluk,

Tirunelveli District. ...Respondent Nos.1 to 4/Petitioners

(Minors R2 to R4 are represented by their mother

and natural guardian, the 1

st

respondent Thangam)

5.Poosaidurai,

S/o.Karuelnadar,

Door No.3/260-B,

Kothandaramapuram,

Tenkasi Taluk,

Tirunelveli District. ...5

th

Respondent/1

st

Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree made in

M.C.O.P.No.282 of 2014, dated 18.11.2019 on the file of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal/Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi and allow the appeal

with costs.

For Appellant: Mr.J.S.Murali

For R1 to R4: No Appearance

For R5 : Mr.P.Subbiah

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

decree, dated 18.11.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.282 of 2014 by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi.

2.The 2

nd

respondent/Insurance Company in M.C.O.P.No.282 of 2014

is the appellant herein.

2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

3.The petitioners/claimants are the dependents of the deceased Kannan,

who died in a motor traffic accident.

4.For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.O.P.No.

282 of 2014 are adopted hereunder.

5.The brief facts of the case:

On 16.04.2013 at about 07.00 p.m., the deceased Kannan was riding

his two wheeler bearing registration number TN 72 T 3758 from A.P.Nadanur

to his house along the Alangulam – Kadayam road. While he was coming

from east to west on South Madathur road, the 1

st

respondent had ridden his

two wheeler bearing registration number TN 76 V 6530 in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Kannan. Due to the

impact, the deceased Kannan sustained multiple fatal injuries and died in the

hospital despite admission. The deceased was aged 39 years and was earning

Rs.15,000/- by selling utensils. An F.I.R. in Crime No.125 of 2013

U/s.304(A) of IPC was registered by the Kadayam police against the

1

st

respondent and a charge sheet was laid against him. The 1

st

respondent’s

vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. The petitioners, who are the

wife and children of the deceased Kannan, filed a claim petition seeking

compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

6.The first respondent objected to the claim petition that the deceased

did not have a valid driving license and that he was riding his two wheeler in

an intoxicated condition, thereby inviting the accident. Hence, the petitioners

are not entitled to any compensation.

7.The 2

nd

respondent/Insurance Company strongly objected to the

claim petition by contending that at the time of the accident, the

1

st

respondent’s vehicle was not insured with the 2

nd

respondent. The policy

number 015234775200 produced by the petitioner for the offending vehicle is

a fake policy. In fact, that policy was insured for the vehicle bearing

registration number TN 36 M 6466. So, the 2

nd

respondent is not liable to pay

any compensation.

8.Before the Tribunal, on the petitioners' side, the 1

st

petitioner was

examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 were marked. On the respondents'

side, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.9

were marked. In addition, Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 were also marked.

9.After hearing both sides and after considering the evidence, the

Tribunal has passed the impugned award by holding that the 1

st

respondent is

responsible for the accident and, as per Ex.R.2, the vehicle was insured with

4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

the 2

nd

respondent, the 2

nd

respondent was liable to pay compensation and

awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,82,000/- under various heads with

interest.

10.Aggrieved by the said award, the 2

nd

respondent/Insurance

Company preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

11.The learned counsel for the appellant/2

nd

respondent/Insurance

Company vehemently contended that the 2

nd

respondent/Insurance Company,

in its counter, clearly mentioned that the policy produced by the petitioner for

the offending vehicle is fake. The Insurance Company has also proved that

Ex.P.6 relates to the offending vehicle, which is for the next year, to the

accident year. The 1

st

respondent/owner produced the policy for his offending

vehicle as Ex.R.2, which was not issued by the Insurance Company.

The policy number bearing the very same policy is issued for the vehicle

bearing registration number TN 36 M 6466 of Gobichettipalayam. There is no

chance for the insurance company to issue two policies under the same policy

number. Moreover, the Insurance Company issued a legal notice to the

1

st

respondent/owner and also lodged a police complaint. The crime branch

police investigated the case and found that the policy produced by the

1

st

respondent/owner is a fake one and laid a charge sheet against the accused.

5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

The Insurance Company examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 to substantiate their case

that the Ex.R.2 is a fake policy. But the Tribunal has not accepted the case of

the Insurance Company despite the fact that the claimant failed to produce the

original. The Tribunal erred in misunderstanding the evidence of

R.W.1 and R.W.2. The fact is that at the time of the accident, the vehicle had

no insurance coverage, and the Insurance Company has not received any

premium amount. This fact had been overlooked by the Tribunal. Based on

the policy entry in the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, the Tribunal passed

an award directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. In fact,

there was no contract between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance

Company, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any

compensation to the claimants. Without a proper appreciation of these facts,

the tribunal erred in holding the Insurance Company liable to indemnify the

vehicle owner.

12.The 1

st

claimant, representing the other claimants 2 to 4, has not

participated in the appeal proceeding despite their names being printed in the

cause list.

13.The learned counsel for the 5

th

respondent/owner herein submitted

that he has paid the premium amount and got a policy from the very agent of

6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

the 2

nd

respondent/Insurance Company, who has also issued Ex.P.6 - Policy

for the next year to the accident year. The 5

th

respondent/owner has been

paying the premium amount regularly. The Insurance Company has to take

action against its agent. Eventhough the Insurance Company lodged a police

complaint, after investigation, the 5

th

respondent/owner was exonerated from

the charge sheet, but the police laid a charge sheet only against the agent of

the insurance company. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to

indemnify the insured and the claimants, who are third parties. The Insurance

Company has to pay the compensation, then it is for the insurer to recover

from the vehicle owner or defaulting employee, and in support of his

argument, the learned counsel relied on the following rulings:

(i)Order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High

Court (Kalaburagi Bench) rendered in

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.200863 and 200195

of 2014, dated 24.01.2018 in the case of National

Insurance Company /v/ Raju.

(ii)2025 Ker 7904 in the case of the National

Insurance Company Ltd., /v/ Imran Umar

Muhammed and Others.

14.Heard both sides and the material records were perused. There is no

dispute that the deceased Kannan met with a road traffic accident and died

due to fatal injuries. Though the 1

st

respondent/owner took a plea that the

7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

deceased had ridden his two wheeler in an intoxicated condition, the Tribunal

held that the rider of the 1

st

respondent’s vehicle was responsible for the

accident. The 1

st

respondent/owner has not preferred any appeal against the

said finding. Also, there is no dispute regarding the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal under various heads.

15.The only dispute is that there is no contract between the

2

nd

respondent/Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle.

It is the specific case of the 2

nd

respondent/Insurance Company that the policy

under Ex.R.2 issued for the offending vehicle is a fake one and the original

policy under Ex.R.1 was issued for the vehicle bearing registration number

TN 36 M 6466. On perusal of the records, the petitioner produced the policy

for the offending vehicle as Ex.P.6, which is issued for the period from

04.03.2014 to 03.03.2015. During cross examination by petitioner/claimant,

R.W.2 clearly deposed that k.rh.M.6 tpgj;J Vw;gl;l Mz;ow;F mLj;j

“

Mz;ow;Fhpa ghyprpahFk; .

…”

Moreover, the 1

st

claimant/P.W.1 has

categorically admitted that 2k; vjph;kDjhuh; tHq;fpa fhg;gPL rhd;wpjiH

“

ehd; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy. vd;Dila kDtpy; ghyprp vLf;fg;gl;l fhy

tpguq;fs; brhy;yg;gltpy;iy... .

”

8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

16.From perusal of material records, it is clear that the

2

nd

respondent/Insurance Company has lodged police complaint regarding

the fake policy. The Sub Inspector of District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli has

been examined as R.W1. A perusal of the evidence of R.W.1, he has clearly

deposed that me;j g[fhh; kDtpd; b$uhf;]; efy; vf;];.1 mjd;

“

mog;gilapy; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if b$uhf;]; efy;

vf;];.2. nkw;go tHf;fpd; mog;gilapy; eilbgw;w tprhuizapy;

g{irj;Jiu filaey;Y}h; Nh;ah ,d;Nud;]; Vb$d;rp chpikahsh;

n$hrg; vd;gth; K:yk; jhd; nghypahd ,d;Nud;]; ghyprp bgw;Ws;shh;

vd;W bjhpa te;jJ. vdnt n$hrg; vd;gtiu nkw;go tHf;fpy; vjphpahf

nrh;j;J fle;j 12.10.17k; njjpad;W . g[yd; tprhuizapy; n$hrg; vd;gth;

…

g{irj;Jiuf;F bfhLj;j ghyprp nghypahdJ vd;gJ bjhpate;jJ .

…

n$hrg; vd;gth; 2k; vjph;kDjhuh; fhg;gPl;L epWtdj;jpd; mq;fPfhpf;fg;gl;l

Kfth; my;y... .

”

17.The insurance company has also examined its legal manager as

R.W.2. He has clearly deposed that v.k.rh.m.2 ghyprp vq;fs; brd;id

“

fpisapy; tHq;fpajhf Jyq;Fk; vd;W brhd;dhy; mJ vq;fs; epWtdk;

tHq;fpaJ my;y. bghJthf vq;fs; fk;bgdp tHq;Fk; ghyprp efypy; ve;j

fpisapy; mJ tHq;fg;gl;lJ vd;w tpguk; tuhJ.

”

It is pertinent to note

9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

here that the R.W.2 has not been cross examined by the 1

st

respondent/owner

side.

18.The Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently observed in its order passed

in SPL(Civil)No.1003 of 2022 in the case of National Insurance Company

vs. K.Saravanan, dated 02.04.2026, the insurance company shall lodge

police complaint to prove the fact of fraud upon policy. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court has observed in paragraph No.5 as follows:

“5. .....Once it comes to its knowledge, and it

is satisfied, that a policy is forged/fabricated and

cannot be acted upon to fasten liability upon it, it is

incumbent upon the Insurance Company to inform

the appropriate authorities, namely, the police, as the

creation and use of such documents constitute an

offence. The failure to do so may also give rise to an

inference of possible connivance between the parties.

Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that

the time has come for this Court to adopt stringent

measures to ensure that Insurance Companies

discharge their obligations with due vigilance,

particularly as they deal with public funds

contributed by policyholders at large.”

10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

19.In this case on hand, it is very clear that the

2

nd

respondent/Insurance Company has lodged a police complaint regarding

the fake policy (Ex.R.2) alleged to have been issued for the offending vehicle

and the police did investigation and found that the Ex.R.2 policy is a fake one

and accordingly laid a charge sheet. Therefore, this Court is of the considered

view that the Insurance Company clearly proved that Ex.R.2 - Policy is a fake

one and that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced

in this case in respect of Ex.R.2 - Policy. This Court has also clearly held in

several cases that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay

compensation to the claimant, as there is no valid contract with the owner of

the offending vehicle on and at the time of the accident. It is unfortunate that

the tribunal, without considering the evidence which palpably proves that the

offending vehicle was not under insurance with the appellant company at the

time of the accident and the policy under Ex.R.2 is a fake document.

The petitioner has only produced Ex.P.6 - Policy, which is related to the

succeeding year to the year of the accident. It is also pertinent to note that the

owner of the offending vehicle (1

st

respondent before the Tribunal) has not

produced any material to show that he made a payment to the 2

nd

respondent/

Insurance Company towards a policy covering the accident date.

11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

20.During the course of the argument, the learned counsel relied on the

rulings and argued that the Insurance Company is first to pay the

compensation to the claimants and then be at liberty to recover the same from

the owner. A perusal of those citations shows that since the Insurance

Company therein had not taken criminal action against erring persons, the

liability on the Insurance Company was fixed. But, in this case on hand, the

appellant/Insurance Company has lodged a complaint regarding the fake

policy and the police did investigation and filed a charge sheet. So, the

citations relied on by learned counsel for the 1

st

respondent/owner of the

offending vehicle are not applicable to the facts of this case. When it is

proved that the policy is a fake one, then the Insurance Company is not liable

to pay any compensation. Therefore, there is no hesitation that the Insurance

Company is to be exonerated from the liability to compensate the claimant

and that the owner of the offending vehicle alone is responsible to pay the

compensation to the claimant and the Insurance Company is under no legal or

contractual obligation to indemnify him. However, the petitioners are

entitled to claim compensation from the 1

st

respondent/owner of the offending

vehicle. Thus, the Tribunal has miserably failed to properly appreciate the

evidence adduced in this case and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal

warrants interference and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be allowed.

12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

21. In the result,

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.

(ii)The judgment and decree, dated 18.11.2019 made in

M.C.O.P.No.282 of 2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional

Subordinate Court, Tenkasi is set aside as against the appellant/

2

nd

respondent/Insurance Company and it is exonerated from all liability.

However, the award of the Tribunal as against the 1

st

respondent in the claim

petition, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, is hereby confirmed.

The apportionment of the award amount to the claimants is also confirmed.

(iii) If any amount has been deposited by the appellant/

2

nd

respondent/Insurance Company in this case either before the Tribunal or

before this Court, the same shall be ordered to be withdrawn by the

appellant/2

nd

respondent/Insurance Company on an appropriate application.

(iv) If any amount, from the amount deposited by the appellant/

2nd respondent/Insurance Company, is withdrawn by the

respondents/claimants, the respondents/claimants shall refund the same to the

Insurance Company.

(v) The 5

th

respondent/1

st

respondent/owner of the offending vehicle

TN 76 V 6530 is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of

Rs.16,82,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Eighty two thousand only) together

with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till

13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

the date of deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.282 of 2014 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi

within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(vi) On such deposit being made by the 5

th

respondent/

1

st

respondent/owner of offending vehicle, the claimants/petitioners are

permitted to withdraw their respective share amount as apportioned by the

Tribunal with proportionate interest and cost by filing an appropriate

application before the Tribunal.

(vii) Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is

closed.

04.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes / No

VSD

To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/

Additional Subordinate Court,

Tenkasi.

2.The Record Keeper,

Vernacular Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

P.VADAMALAI, J.

VSD

Pre - Delivery Judgment made in

C.M.A.(MD)No.623 of 2020

and

C.M.P(MD)No.6508 of 2020

04.06.2026

15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis