CMA/2433/2022 of The Manager Vs Maruvarasi on 8 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The 2nd respondent insurance company has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (FTC), Kanchipuram, in MCOP.No.272 of 2014. For ease of understanding, the parties are referred to as claimants and respondent as found in the claim petition. The facts of the case are herein below set out.

2. The claimants are the wife and son of the deceased Boobalan. The 3rd respondent is the father of the deceased and the 4th respondent is the mother of the deceased. The 5th respondent herein is the sister of the deceased who was brought on record on the death of her father.

3. It is the case of the claimants that on 27.03.2013 at about 15.30 hrs, when the deceased was standing near BHEL, Teloau Road, Vindhya Nagar, the vehicle bearing registration No. UP 10 B 4376, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said Boobalan and capsized on him and he was caught inside the car. By reason of the accident, the deceased and the occupants of the car sustained injuries and it was only the said Boobalan who had sustained fatal injuries and died while taking to the hospital.

4. The first claimant would submit that she is a legally wedded wife of the deceased Boobalan and the second claimant is their minor son. The claimants would submit that the deceased Boobalan was working as a Site Manager in the ABB India Limited and his monthly income was a sum of Rs.39,423/-. It is their case that the offending vehicle belonged to the 1st respondent and was insured with the 2nd respondent. Therefore, they had filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-.

5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent insurance company has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations contained in the claim petition.

6. The 2nd respondent contended that the accident occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. UP 10 B 4736. Further, though the accident took place on 27.03.2013, it was only reported on 05.04.2013. There is a delay of 8 days in filing the FIR. The 2nd respondent further submits that the driver of the insured car does not have valid and effective driving license. It is their contention that the monthly income as set out is contrary to the truth, and they put the claimants to the strict proof thereof.

7. The 2nd respondent had filed an additional counter affidavit in which they had clearly stated that the charge sheet and report filed before the Special Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivpal Keval, District Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh, shows that the deceased Boobalan along with Vinod Vishwalan, Raju Raidas, Ravi Teja, Aashish Goyal were travelling in Maruti 800 car bearing registration No. UP 10 B 4736.

8. The 2nd respondent would submit that the accident had occurred on account of the rear tyre coming off from the axel as a result of which the car had turned turtle and all the person inside the car got injuries and the said Boobalan sustained severe injuries on the head and died. The deceased is therefore an occupant of the car and the policy is an act only policy, which does not cover the occupant of the car and only covers third parties. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent insured.

9. The 1st claimant examined herself as PW1 and one Chandrashekar as PW2, representing the employer of the deceased Boobalan. She had marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17. The 2nd respondent had examined their Assistant Manager as RW1 and marked Ex.R.1.

10. The Tribunal relying solely upon the oral evidence of PW1 and the claim statement proceeded to hold that the driver of the offending vehicle, Maruti 800 car was responsible for the accident and granted a compensation of sum of Rs.81,32,488/-.

11. The insurance company has challenged the said award on the ground that the deceased Boobalan was an occupant of the offending vehicle and as the policy is an act only policy, the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay compensation.

12. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent / appellant submits that the FIR which has been marked on the side of the claimants themselves as Ex.P.1, describes the accident as one that had occurred on account of the will of the offending vehicle as a result of which the said Boobalan has sustained serious injuries in the head and died. The learned counsel would submit that PW2 representative of the employer also in his evidence corroborated the same. Therefore, since Ex.R1 policy was an act only policy, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimants and the tribunal has totally ignored the defense raised in their additional counter and has not even referred to the same. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the appeal may be allowed.

13. Per contra, Mr.Lokesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants would submit that the Tribunal has considered the version of the complainant and not relied upon the FIR. He would in this regard rely upon the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 (12) SCC 15 – Halappa Vs. Malik Sab and 2021 18 (SCC) 596 – National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chamundeswari and others and the judgement of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2004 SCC

Online MP 459 – Nanhu Singh Vs. Jaheer and others.

14. We have heard the arguments made by both the learned counsels and perused the documents that have been filed.

15. The accident had admittedly taken place at Singroli, Madhya Pradesh. ExP.3 is the translated attested copy of the death certificate. Ex.P.10 is the certified English translation of the property seizure memo dated 27.05.2013. In column No.12 relating to the description of the property seized, it is described as damaged white colour Maruti 800 bearing No. UP 10 B 4736. The old vehicle is completely damaged and the right side back Tyre was separated from axle. This statement is reiterated in Ex.P.8, crime details form, where in Column No.10 (1) it is stated that the place which is marked as No.1 is the place where the accident had occurred which is situate at Shanthi Nagar to Vindhya Nagar main road near CISF Tower No.4, where the driver was running the vehicle Maruti 800 in a rash and negligent manner and the right side back tyre parted from the axle and thereafter the car had hit electric pole (v/56) and turned turtle. This report is dated 27.03.2013, i.e., on the date of the accident itself.

16. Ex.P.5 is the FIR which has been filed into the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate I Class, District – Singroli, under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304 (A) of IPC. In the said document, the description of the incident in its translated form would read as follows: “The short description of the incident is as follows; on the information 09/2013 under Section 174 Cr.PC received from NTPC Vindhyanagar Hospital we investigated the case and did Panchnama, Post-mortem and recorded statements witnesses, then we found that on 27.03.2013 accused Aashish Goyal S/o. Shri Girish Chandra was himself running his Maruti – 800 (UP 10 B 4736) rashly without care with deceased Bhopalan T Ravi Teza, Raju Raidas, Aviraj Singh, Vinod Vishwalan, so right hand side back tyre parted from excel and then car hit to the electricity poll and get turn round. So everybody who was in car got injuries but Bhopalan T got serious injuries and got dead during his treatment. After enquiry we have registered a crime No: 84/2013 under Section 279, 337, 304 (A) of IPC against driver Aashish Goyal and took in investigation”.

17. The details in the property seizure memo, Ex.P.10 and the description of the accident in FIR, Ex.P.5 were identical.

18. All these documents have been filed on the side of the claimants and at no point in time have the claimants questioned the manner in which the accident had been described in these documents.

19. PW1 in her evidence would bring out a case that she and the deceased was standing on the road side when the car had hit the deceased. There is no explanation as to why the first claimant has not given the complaint to the Police. Further, her name does not feature in the postmortem report, FIR, property seizure memo etc.,

20. Ex.P.5, FIR, which includes application for postmortem would show that the person who had identified the body was one of the occupant of the car, Ravi Teja. Even here, the name of the claimant does not feature. The witnesses 1 to 4 are other occupants of the car. The claimants on the other hand have not been able to prove that the 1st claimant was present at the scene of the accident. The claimants would

place reliance by stating that in the cross examination, the respondent was not able to elicit any contra evidence from PW1. However, in the light above overwhelming documentary evidences and the evidence of PW2, it is clear that the accident has not taken place as described in the claim petition but only as described in Ex.P.5, FIR. Therefore, the deceased was an occupant of the offending vehicle. Therefore, he is not a third party as contemplated under Ex.R1 policy.

21. In the Judgement of Halappa Vs. Malik Sab – 2018 (12) SCC 15, the appellant through his own evidence and the evidence of PW3 had established that the defense set up by the insurer was totally false. He had placed its reliance only upon FIR which was in total variance to the evidence which had been placed before the Tribunal.

22. In the judgement of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Chamundeswari and others – 2021 (18) SCC 596, the evidence of PW1 who had travelled in the car and PW3 would clearly go to show that the accident had not taken place as stated in the FIR. Similar was the point before the High Court, Madhya Pradesh in the case of Nanhu Singh Vs. Jaheer and others – 2004 SCC Online MP 459.

23. However, in the case on hand it is not only the FIR but also the other documents. Most of which has been executed on the date of the accident would clearly go to show that the accident had occurred in a manner different from the claim statement and the statement of the first claimant. In addition to this documentary evidences, PW2 evidence also confirms the same.

24. The Tribunal has observed as follows in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the award: “12.It is the substantive evidence of eyewitness of PW2 that the accident was caused by negligent driving of Maruthi 800 car bearing Reg.No.UP 10 B 4736 by its driver. It is corroborated by evidence of PW1 the 1st claimant, Ex.P1 the First Information Report, Ex.P.2 copy of Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.P3 copy of death certificate. It is neither refuted nor controverted with evidence by respondents. It leads to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi 800 Car bearing Reg. No. UP 10 B 4736 by its driver.

13. As consequence of negligence of the driver, he is liable as tortfeasor, the owner is vicariously liable for act of the driver and insurer to pay for the owner as indemnifier.”

25. It is rather surprising that the learned Judge has not taken note of the fact that the contents of the FIR and contents of the claim petition are totally in variance with each other.

26. Be that as it may, considering the above discussion it is clear that the accident had taken place at Singroli, Madhya Pradesh with the deceased Boobalan travelling as an occupant of the offending car. Therefore, since the policy is an act only policy it does not cover occupants of the car. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal below has to be set aside.

27. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed insofar as the liability of the 2nd respondent to compensate the claimants. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 08-09-2026 KAN

To Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Additional District Court (FTC) Kanchipuram.

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. KAN CMA No. 2433 of 2022 08-09-2026