C.M.A.No.12 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 13.04.2021

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

C.M.A.No.12 of 2021

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd.,

New No.528, Old No.559,

2nd Floor, Anna Salai,

Teynampet, Chennai- 600 018.

... Appellant

Vs.

1.Premalatha

2.Elangovan

3.M.Jayalakshmi

... Respondents

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicle Act, 1988, praying to set-aside the Decretal order and Award dated

02.01.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.2038 of 2017 on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court II), Chennai.

For Appellant : Mr. Somasundaar N

For RR1 & 2 : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj

For R3

: No Appearance

1/10

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

C.M.A.No.12 of 2021

JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed challenging the Award and Decree dated 02.01.2020

made in M.C.O.P.No.2038 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal (Small Causes Court II), Chennai.

2. The Insurance company has filed the appeal challenging their liability

to pay the compensation awarded to the respondent/ claimants.

3. The parents of the deceased minor Abishek who died in a motor

accident which took place on 08.09.2016, have filed the claim petition claiming

a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation before the Claims Tribunal.

4. The negligence and quantum of compensation are not disputed by the

appellant/Insurance Company. The only point raised in this appeal is whether

the appellant/Insurance Company can be made liable to pay the compensation

amount, on a fake policy.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the policy

produced by the claimants and marked as Ex.P.7 was a fake policy. The learned

counsel submitted that the bar code of the appellant/Insurance Company was

2/10

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

C.M.A.No.12 of 2021

manipulated and the fake policy was created. According to the

appellant/Insurance Company, as the claim is based on a fake policy, the

appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and therefore,

the direction of the Claims Tribunal directing the appellant/ Insurance Company

to pay the compensation is untenable.

6. The learned counsel submitted that inspite of sufficient evidence being

let in by the Insurance Company both oral and documentary, the Tribunal, in

total ignorance of the same, mulcted the liability on the Insurance Company.

The learned counsel therefore submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

7. The learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents on the other hand

submitted that the respondents/claimants were third parties and as the Motor

Vehicles Act was a beneficial Legislation, there is absolutely no infirmity in the

Claims Tribunal directing the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the

compensation. The learned counsel therefore submitted that there are

absolutely no merits in the appeal and the same deserves to be rejected.

8. I have heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials

placed on record.

3/10

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

C.M.A.No.12 of 2021

9. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on Ex.P.7 and Ex.R.2, to

establish that the policy produced by the claimants was a fake policy. From

Ex.P.7 filed by the claimant's, it is seen that the Registration Number of the

vehicle insured was TN-57-5189, the period of insurance was 28.07.2016 to

27.07.2017, the name of the insured was noted as Mrs.N.Jayalakshmi and the

policy number was shown as 2317201614979000000. Whereas the scanned

copy of the bar code embossed in the claimants policy copy shows the policy

number as 2317201314184000000, the policy holder's name as K.Agilan the

registration number as TN-32-D-5611 and the period of insurance as

09.02.2016 to 08.02.2017. The original policy of the scanned bar code was

produced as Ex.R.2. The Tribunal, insp