An insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to third parties if the insurance policy produced is established as a forged and fraudulent document through criminal investigation, as no valid contract of insurance exists between the owner and the insurer.

JUDGMENT :

P.VADAMALAI, J.

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 2nd respondent/Insurance Company in M.C.O.P.No.282 of 2014 is the appellant herein.

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/-.

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 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 2nd 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. Th