Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Gajraj @ Gajraj Katariaya on 4 November, 2025
C.M.A.No.2714 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
C.M.A.No.2714 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.23136 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.26164 of 2025
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Silingi Building,
No.134, Greams Road, Chennai-6. … Appellant / 2nd Respondent
vs.
1.Gajraj @ Gajraj Katariaya
2.V.Nirmala … Respondents / Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.11.2023
made in M.C.O.P.No.2199 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal / the V Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi Kumar[R1]
JUDGMENT
Challenging the liability saddled upon the insurance company, this
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Award dated
08.11.2023 made in M.C.O.P.No.2199 of 2017 on the file of the Motor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 07:09:54 pm )
Accident Claims Tribunal / V Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the
Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. Parties are indicated herein as per the litigative status and
ranking before the Tribunal.
3. Case of the claimant is that on 18.12.2016 at about 15.15 Hrs.,
while the petitioner was travelling as a passenger in an autorickshaw
bearing Reg.No.TN-07-AJ-3388 proceeding towards Vyasarpadi in front of
New Bridge mouth, North down, Basin Bridge, Vyasarpadi, Chennai the
driver of the Auto rickshaw drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and in high speed hit behind the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-
05-BD-9964. Due to the said impact, Auto rickshaw turned Topsyturvy.
The petitioner fell down and sustained crush injuries with skin loss over
the left index finger, middle finger and multiple grievous injuries all over
body. He was taken to Nichani's Hospital, Royapuram, Chennai and he
took further treatment in other private hospital in Chennai. The driver of
the Auto rickshaw is responsible for the accident. The owner of the auto
rickshaw and its insurer / 2nd respondent are liable to pay compensation to
the claimant herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 07:09:54 pm )
4. The 1st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal. The 2nd
respondent would state that there is no valid insurance policy and the
driver of the vehicle (auto rickshaw) had no valid and effective driving
licence, no valid permit and F.C., at the relevant point of time. The
Insurance Policy in No.0120033116P110067657 of the 1st respondent's
vehicle, the policy is liability only policy and the passengers in the
1st respondent's vehicle (auto rickshaw) are not covered under the policy.
No separate premium was paid by the 1st respondent to cover the
passengers travelling in the Auto as mentioned supra and therefore, the
2nd respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to
the petitioner.
5. It appears that no evidence was led in by the 2 nd
respondent/Insurance Company, the Tribunal by holding that the 2nd
respondent has not proved any violation of policy condition by the 1st
respondent and the liability was saddled upon the Insurance Company to
pay compensation.
6. On behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, an application is
taken out under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to receive the private vehicle
policy No.0120033116P110067657 issued in the name of Smt.Nirmala /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 07:09:54 pm )
1st respondent for the period from 28.10.2016 to 27.10.2017. R.C.Book in
respect of auto rickshaw as an additional document.
7. On behalf of the 1st respondent/claimant, it was counteracted by
filing counter that the insurer denied its policy on the ground of nature of
the insurance policy. For the reasons best known to the insurer, no
witness was examined and the insurance policy was not marked before
the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/Claimant would
strongly object for receiving insurance policy R.C.Book of the vehicle
bearing Reg.No.TN-07-AJ-3388. He would further contend that the
petitioner has not stated any credible reasons as to why the documents
were not produced before the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the
application.
8. Of course, additional evidence shall not be allowed in Appellate
Court under three circumstances: (i) Where the trial Court refused to admit
the evidence though it ought to have been admitted. (ii) Evidence was not
available to the party despite the exercise of due diligence. (iii) Appellate
Court required the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronounce
better judgment or any other substantial cause of like nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 07:09:54 pm )
9. No doubt, in the counter of the insurance company, it has been
stated about the details of the policy in respect of the concerned Auto
rickshaw. The claimant states that he travelled in the Auto at the relevant
point of time and sustained serious injuries.
10. As per the counter details, the policy is liability only policy. As no
oral or documentary evidence was led in on behalf of the Insurance
Company, the Tribunal saddled the liability upon the Insurance Company.
Marking of insurance policy is essential to determine the Insurance
Company's liability. Therefore, in order to have an effective justice, the
Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P.No.26164 of 2025 stands allowed
and the documents are received.
11. In order to enable the Tribunal to permit the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company to led evidence, the award passed by the
Tribunal stands set aside. Sequel to this, the Original Petition is remanded
back to the concerned Tribunal and the Tribunal shall afford an
opportunity to the Insurance Company to lead oral and documentary
evidence and after hearing the arguments of both sides and pronounce
the judgment in accordance with law preferably within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 07:09:54 pm )
12. In view of the above said narrative, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition in C.M.P.No.23136 of 2025 stands closed.
04.11.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
ssn
To:
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
V Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
R.KALAIMATHI, J.,
ssn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 07:09:54 pm )
and
and
04.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 07:09:54 pm )
