Madras High Court
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. ... vs Kavia Arasan on 9 August, 2021
CMA No.916 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CMA No.916 of 2015
and
MP No.1 of 2015
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager,
6th Floor,
Leela Business Park,
Andheri Kurla Road,
Andheri East,
Mumbai - 400 059. ... Appellant
versus
1. Kavia Arasan
2. Neelamegam .... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree in MCOP No.463 of 2009,
dated 16.09.2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Subordinate Judge, Harur.
For Appellant : Mr.MB. Raghavan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajendran
Legal Aid counsel for R1
Mr.S.Kalyanaraman
for R2
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
CMA No.916 of 2015
JUDGMENT
(Heard Video Conference)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the award dated 16.09.2014 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Harur in MCOP No.463 of 2009.
2. The appellant / Insurance Company has challenged the
impugned award only on the ground that the Tribunal has erroneously
failed to consider the fact that the subject insurance policy (Ex.R1),
which is the basis of the Motor Accident Claims is a fabricated and forged
one. Therefore, according to the appellant /Insurance Company, they are
not liable to pay the compensation to the first respondent / claimant.
3. This Court had directed the CBCID to file a status report as
regards the investigation conducted by them with regard to the subject
insurance policy which was the subject matter of the claim in MCOP
No.463 of 2009 and the subject matter of challenge in this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA No.916 of 2015
4. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, a status report
dated 12.07.2021 was filed before this Court. In paragraph No.13 of the
said status report, it has been made clear by the CBCID, Dharmapuri
that the subject insurance policy produced by the claimant Kaviarasan,
the first respondent in this appeal is a fabricated Insurance policy.
5. Paragraph No.13 of the status report of the CBCID dated
12.07.2021 is extracted hereunder :
13. It is submitted that during investigation the
said pillion rider Manojkumar said that after the incident
Neelamegam / Respondent 2, informed him to contact
Premprakash and to collect Insurance Certificate from
him also to fax the same to Neelamegam / Respondent 2.
The witness further informed that he did it accordingly.
Thereupon, during the investigation, a copy of the
alleged fax (Insurance Certificate) was obtained and
verified. It is nothing but, a fabricated Insurance
Certificate used in the case. Therefore, it is fully proved
that Premprakash has furnished that fabricated
Insurance Certificate to Neelamegam/Respondent 2, he
used the same as genuine. Therefore, the de-facto
complainant company is not at fault.
6. Heard Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel for the appellant /
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA No.916 of 2015
Insurance Company and Mr.S.Kalyanaraman, learned counsel for the
second respondent. Since the 1st respondent / claimant herein is
represented by Mr.M.Rajendran, Legal Aid counsel, pursuant to the
directions given by this Court, his name is also printed in the cause list,
today and is represented herein by Ms.Vinotha, learned counsel
representing for Mr.M.Rajendran, the legal aid counsel for the
respondent.
7. When it has been conclusively proved from the status report of
CBCID that the subject insurance policy is a fake and fabricated one and
when the said policy is the basis of claim in MCOP No.916 of 2015, the
question of payment of compensation by the appellant /Insurance
Company to the 1st respondent / claimant will not arise.
8. Therefore, the impugned award dated 16.09.2014 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP No.463 of 2009 has to be
necessarily set aside. Accordingly, the impugned award dated
16.09.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court,
Harur in MCOP No.463 of 2009 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA No.916 of 2015
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.08.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
To
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Harur.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section
High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA No.916 of 2015
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
CMA No.916 of 2015
09.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
