CRP/2536/2026 of The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited Vs Mariselvam Devi on 2 September 2026

ORDER

The insurer is the revision petitioner, challenging an Award passed before the Lok Adanat, Ranipet, in Lok Adalat Case No.260 of 2025.

2. I have heard Mr.T.M.Hariharan, for Mrs.R.S.Lakshmi Priyadarshini, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.Sairaman, learned counsel for the contesting 2nd respondent.

3. Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that though an award came to be passed before the Lok Adalat, to which, admittedly, the petitioner/insurer as a party, fraud has been played by the claimant in obtaining the award and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the award is liable to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Taking me to the facts of the case, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the policy did not cover the loss suffered by the owner and pointing out to the policy in question, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that personal accident cover for the registered owner cum driver was limited to Rs.2 lakhs alone and admittedly, the registered owner was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident and therefore, there was no liability cast upon the insurer in the first place. It is also his primordial submission that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal itself did not have jurisdiction to decide the claim of the owner of the vehicle, who did not have any personal cover and if at all the registered owner intended to make any claim on account of personal damage or loss suffered, it could have been made only before the competent Civil Court or other competent Forum and not before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further state that the insurer was set ex-parte in the MCOP proceedings and as soon as the ex-parte order was set aside, the parties were referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement and the petitioner was hoodwinked into consenting for the award in favour of the registered owner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 553, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorised representatives) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section 147 does not require an insurance Company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.

6. The ratio laid down in Dhanraj’s case has been followed in subsequent decision in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Prabha Devi and others, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 719. Following the ratio laid down in Dhanraj’s case, a similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajni Devi and others, reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 736. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s.Tata AIG Geneal Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shanmugam in CMA.No.1395 of 2021 dated 19.08.2024, where this Court held that a claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act cannot be filed by an owner/insurer before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and even if the owner of the vehicle has taken a personal accident cover, in such event also, his remedy will not be before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, since he is not a third party.

7. Per contra, Mr.S.Sairaman, learned counsel for the contesting 2nd respondent would state that the claimant has not played any fraud or suppressed any material particulars. In this regard, he takes me through the claim petition filed before the Tribunal at the first instance, where there is a clear indication of the material fact that the petitioner herself is the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that they were not provided with the copies of the claim petition. In fact, as conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, initially, the petitioner was set ex-parte and while setting aside the ex-parte order, the parties were referred to the Lok Adalat. Nothing prevented the petitioner from raising the issue of maintainability of the claim petition at the earliest instance and refuse to be a party to any award before the Lok Adalat. Admittedly no such objection was taken with regard to disowning liability of the petitioner Company. On the contrary, the petitioner voluntarily participated in the proceedings before the Lok Adalat and consented to the award being passed. He would therefore state that it is not open to the petitioner now to challenge the Lok Adalat award. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

9. There is no quarrel with regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court right from Dhanraj’s case that the liability of the insurance company cannot be extended to cover personal damage or loss suffered by the registered owner. However, despite service of notice, the petitioner remained ex-parte and in order set aside the ex- parte order, they took out an application which also came to be allowed and thereafter, the parties were referred to the Lok Adalat. The settlement reached before the Lok Adalat is a voluntary decision of the parties to the lis.

10. It is not the case of the petitioner that they were compelled to consent to the award. A faint attempt is however made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claimant has played fraud by suppressing material facts and that she being the claimant as well as the registered owner, could not have even maintained the claim petition before the Tribunal at the first instance. However, I am unable to see any fraud or misrepresentation as alleged to have been played by the 2nd respondent/claimant. Even in the claim petition, It is specifically and clearly disclosed that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. Therefore, if the petitioner wanted to dispute its liability, nothing prevented the petitioner from stating so before the Lok Adalat and refusing to be a party to the award. Having consented to settle the claim of the 2nd respondent at Rs.7,30,000/- and also agreeing to a default clause to pay interest at 7.5% per annum, in the event of the delay/default, I am unable to countenance the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the award is liable to be set aside.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner may be well justified, if the award was passed before the regular Tribunal, on contest, where the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability of the claim had been raised by the petitioner / Insurance Company. However, I am unable to see such objection being taken to an award passed before the Lok Adalat with the voluntary participation and consent of the petitioner/Insurance Company. I have already discussed as to how there is no fraud or misrepresentation as attempted to be projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, there is no impediment for the parties to arrive at a settlement before the Lok Adalat, waiving technical and legal defenses and objections that may be open to the parties, if the case was contested on merits. In such circumstances, none of the decisions that have been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be applied to the facts of the present case.

12. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhargavi Constructions and another Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others, reported in (2019) 13 SCC 480, that a challenge to an award before the Lok Adalat is maintainable, only by way of approaching the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, but such window is not open in all cases, but can only be invoked successfully when fraud or misrepresentation is pleaded and made out. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision petition.

13. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 02.09.2026 Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata To The Lok Adalat, Ranipet.

P.B.BALAJI.

J, ata Pre-delivery order made in CRP.No.2536 of 2026 02.09.2026