[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M/S.Cholamandalam Ms General vs K.Dineshkumar on 24 February, 2026
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
2026:MHC:939
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
AND
C.M.P. NO.1345 OF 2026
M/s.Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Shawalas Building
Thambu Chetty Street,
Parrys, Chennai – 600 001. … Appellant /
2nd Respondent
Versus
1.K.Dineshkumar
S/o.Karthikeyan
No.124/64, Thirumangaiazhwar Street,
Sriperambathur,
Kanchipuram District – 602 105 … 1st Respondent /
Petitioner
2.M.Manikandan
S/o. Meganathan
No.27, Sannathi Street,
Ponnamallee, Chennai – 600 056. … 2nd Respondent /
1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree
dated June 23, 2025 passed in M.C.O.P. No.2322 of 2018 on the file of the
Page No.1 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Court No.II, Court of Small
Causes, Chennai by allowing the Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Raghavan
For Respondent-1 : Mr.Amar D.Pandiya
For Respondent-2 : No appearance
***
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.Sakthivel, J.)
Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated June 23, 2025 passed by 'the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Court No.II, Court of Small
Causes, Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.2322 of 2018, the
second respondent therein / insurance company, has preferred this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be
referred to as per their array in the Original Petition.
PETITIONER'S CASE
3. On July 22, 2017, at about 00:30 hours, the petitioner - K.Dinesh
Kumar was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing
Registration No.TN-20-BM-7106. The motorcycle was travelling near
Nokia Gate, VRP Chatram, Sriperumbudur. The driver of the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
motorcycle drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against an
unknown vehicle on its rear side. Due to the rear end collision caused by
the driver of the motorcycle in which the petitioner was riding pillion, the
petitioner and the driver of the offending motorcycle, both sustained
grievous injuries. He was rushed to Government Hospital, Sriperumbudur
where first aid was administered to him. Thereafter, on the same day, he
was shifted to Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai.
3.1. At the time of accident, the petitioner was 23 years old. He was
working as a Collection Staff at M/s.Radiant Cash Management Services
and Limited, Chennai and thereby earned a sum of Rs.9,500/- per month.
3.2. With regard to the accident, a First Information Report (F.I.R.) in
Crime No.651 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 279, 304(A) and
338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was registered on the file of
Sriperumbudur Police Station, against the driver of the aforesaid
motorcycle whose name is Murugesan. As Murugesan passed away on the
next day of the accident i.e., on July 23, 2017, F.I.R. Sections were altered
to Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
3.3. First respondent is the owner of the said offending motorcycle
and the second respondent is the insurer of the said motorcycle. According
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
to the petitioner, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent
riding of the rider of the motorcycle and therefore, both the respondents are
jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. Accordingly, the
petitioner filed the present Claim Petition seeking a compensation of
Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only).
FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE:
4. First respondent remained absent and was set ex-parte by the
Tribunal.
SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE:
5. The second respondent filed a counter statement denying the
claim petition averments. The second respondent averred that the petitioner
is put to strict proof of the petition averments. Further, it was specifically
averred that F.I.R. was registered against an unknown vehicle and not
against the driver of first respondent's motorcycle. It was also specifically
averred that as per the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report [M.V.I. Report],
the petitioner himself was the driver of the first respondent's motorcycle.
On the above grounds, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the
Original Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
TRIBUNAL
6. At trial, on the side of the petitioner, he examined himself as
P.W.1 and marked Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.30; Mr.Anandaraj from Bills Department
of Sri Ramachandra Hospital was examined as P.W.2 and through him Ex-
X.1 to Ex-X.3 were marked; Mr.Saravanan, Officer of Medical Records
Department, Dr.Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai was
examined as P.W.3 and through him Ex-X.4 and Ex-X.5 were marked. On
the side of the second respondent, one Ms.Sangeetha, Deputy Manager of
second respondent - Legal Department was examined as R.W.1 and Ex-R.1
to Ex-R.4 were marked. Disability Certificate issued to the petitioner was
marked as Ex-C.1.
7. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
first respondent's motorcycle namely Murugesan. Since the offending
motorcycle belonging to the first respondent was duly insured with the
second respondent / insurance company at the material point of time, the
Tribunal held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners and awarded a sum of Rs.21,52,813/-
(Rupees Twenty-One Lakh Fifty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
Thirteen only) as compensation to the petitioner. The specific heads under
which compensation was granted are as tabulated hereunder:
S. No. Head Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.5,55,053/-
2. Transportation charges Rs.35,000/-
3. Extra Nourishment Rs.30,000/-
4. Attender charges Rs.40,000/-
5. Loss of Income Rs.12,92,760/-
6. Discomfort and pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
Total Rs.21,52,813/-
8. Challenging the Award, the second respondent / insurance
company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
ARGUMENTS
9. The main and vehement contention of Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned
Counsel appearing for the appellant / second respondent / insurance
company is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the driver of
first respondent's motorcycle did not hold a valid driving licence at the
time of accident and erred in fixing the liability to pay compensation on the
second respondent without ordering for pay and recovery.
9.1. He elaborates on his argument by submitting that indeed the
burden lies upon the second respondent to prove its defence under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
149 (2) (a) (ii) of 'the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' ['M.V. Act' for short] as it
stood before the Amendment Act No.32 of 2019. But the nature and
amount of proof depends upon the unique facts and circumstances of each
case. He submits that in this case, despite service of notice, the first
respondent did not choose to contest the claim petition. Further, the second
respondent issued Ex-R.4 - Notice dated December 5, 2018 to the first
respondent calling upon him to produce the driving licence particulars. The
first respondent, after receipt of the same, neither furnished the details of
the driver and his driving licence nor sent any reply. When the first
respondent has been silent about the licence particulars, the second
respondent cannot be made to prove a negative fact i.e., absence of a valid
licence by impossible means of summoning the Regional Transport Officer
[RTO].
9.2. He further points out that in view of Section 133 of the M.V. Act
read with Rule 376 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the first
respondent being the owner of the offending motorcycle has a statutory
duty / obligation to furnish the details of the driving licence of its driver.
Since the first respondent failed to produce the details of the driving
licence, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn. For ease of
reference, the said provisions are extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
Section 133 of the M.V. Act:
133.Duty of owner of motor vehicle to give information. - The
owner of a motor vehicle, the driver or conductor of which is
accused of any offence under this Act shall, on the demand of
any police officer authorised in this behalf by the State
Government, give all information regarding the name and
address of, and the licence held by, the driver or conductor
which is in his possession or could by reasonable diligence be
ascertained by him.
Rule 376 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989:
'376.Officers empowered to demand information.- Police
Officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector and any inspecting
officers of the Transport Department are authorised to demand
from the owner of a motor vehicle the driver of which is accused
of an offence under the Act all information regarding the name
and address of and the licence held by the driver which is in his
possession or could by reasonable diligence be ascertained by
him.'
9.3. Further, he highlights the practical difficulty in examining the
RTO to establish that driver did not hold a valid driving licence. He
differentiated cases where there is some information available regarding
the driver's licence and where there is no whisper about the same like the
instant case. When no information about the licence is available throughout
the proceedings, even when the RTO was examined on the side of the
insurance companies, a simple suggestion in cross-examination that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
driver could have obtained a licence outside the jurisdiction of that RTO,
the RTO's answer to which is obviously yes, renders the entire exercise of
examining RTO in this regard completely futile.
9.4. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered the above
aspects, drawn adverse inference against the first respondent and held that
the insurance company proved that the first respondent's driver had no
valid driving licence at the material point of time. Instead, the Tribunal
observed that the second respondent did not prove that the driver of first
respondent's motorcycle had no valid driving licence, which is erroneous.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and order
for pay and recovery.
9.5. He relies on the following Judgments in support of his
contentions:
(i) Pappu's Case - Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu -vs-
Vinod Kumar Lamba, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208;
(ii) Amrit Paul Singh's Case Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Amrit Paul Singh -vs- TATA AIG General Insurance Company
Limited, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
(iii) Sithiga Yasmeeni's Case - Judgment of a Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Sithiga
Yasmeen dated April 5, 2022 made in C.M.A. No.706 2020.
10. Mr.Amar D.Pandiya, learned Counsel appearing for the first
respondent herein / petitioner submits that the initial burden always lies
upon the insurance company to prove that the driver of first respondent's
motorcycle did not possess valid driving licence. The insurance company
ought to have taken steps to examine the Regional Transport Officer to
prove that the first respondent's driver had no valid driving licence. The
Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
correctly rendered the finding that the second respondent failed to prove
that the driver of first respondent's motorcycle had no valid driving licence
at the time of accident. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
DISCUSSION
11. From hearing either side and perusing the evidence available on
record, the main points that emerges for consideration in this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal are:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
(i) Whether the second respondent / insurance company has
sufficiently discharged its burden of proof with respect to its
defence under Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the M.V. Act as it stood
before the Amendment Act No.32 of 2019 that the driver of the
first respondent's offending motorcycle was not holding a driving
licence at the time of accident ?
(ii) Whether adverse inference under Section 114 of Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 is to be drawn against the first respondent / owner for
non-production of driving licence particulars of the driver of his
offending motorcycle at the time of accident, when called upon to
do so by the insurance company vide Ex-R.4 - Notice dated
December 5, 2018 ?
(iii) Whether the insurance company is entitled to the relief of pay and
recover ?
12. Though there is no serious dispute with regard to the aspects of
negligence and quantum of compensation before this Court, before delving
into the main points for consideration, this Court would like to deal with
the said aspects.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
13. As far as negligence aspect is concerned, Ex-P.1 - F.I.R. was
registered against Murugesan, who is the rider of the first respondent's
offending motorcycle at the material point of time, and not against an
unknown vehicle as contended by the second respondent in its counter. The
Police, after investigation filed Ex-P.2 - Final Report stating that since the
accused Murugesan passed away, charges against him are abated. P.W.1,
who is the petitioner / injured himself, deposed in his evidence that on July
22, 2017 at about 00.30 hours, Murugesan rode the first respondent's
motorcycle in which he was riding pillion, in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against an unknown vehicle and thus caused the accident.
Despite cross examination, his evidence could not be shaken by the second
respondent. In view of the uncontroverted evidence of P.W.1 coupled with
Ex-P.1 - F.I.R., this Court is of the view that said Murugesan is solely to be
blamed for causing the accident by operating the first respondent's
offending motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal rightly
held so and there is no need to interfere with the said finding.
14. As stated supra, this Court shall get into liability aspect after
discussing the quantum of compensation. As regards quantum of
compensation, relying on the petition averment that the petitioner was
working as a collection agent coupled with the corroborating evidence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
P.W.1, the Tribunal took a sum of Rs.9,500/- per month as notional income,
which is fair and proper. The Tribunal further by taking into account Ex-
C.1 - Disability Certificate and the fact that the petitioner suffers from
locomotor disability due to his crush injuries on right leg, rightly
proceeded with multiplier method. The Tribunal considered his functional
disability at 45%, applied the multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs.12,92,760/-
towards loss of income. The same warrants no interference in the
considered opinion of this Court. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum
of Rs.5,55,053/- under the head of medical expenses. However, on perusal
of the medical bills in Ex-P.20 and Ex-X.3, it is seen that certain medical
bills amounting to a sum of Rs.1,63,062/- are not authenticated bills. At the
time of argument, this Court pointed out the same and the Counsels on
either side consented to reduce the said amount from the compensation
awarded. The compensation awarded under the other heads are just, fair
and reasonable and also based on evidence. No need for any interference
with them.
15. Now this Court shall jointly take up Point Nos.(i), (ii) and (iii)
for discussion, as they are intertwined.
16. As per Ex-R.2 - Insurance Policy and Particulars, the first
respondent's offending motorcycle is insured with the second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
under Policy No.3361/00545021/000/00. It is a package policy covering
pillion rider as well. It was valid from March 2, 2017 to March 1, 2018.
The accident occurred on July 22, 2017 and hence the policy was in force
at the relevant point of time.
17. This Court deems fit to extract the summary of findings in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. -vs- Swaran Singh, reported in (2004) 3
SCC 297, which are primarily related to burden to prove non-holding of
valid driving licence and the principle of pay and recovery. Paragraph
No.110 of the Judgment therein reads thus:
'Summary of findings
110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as
raised in these petitions is as follows:
(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing
compulsory insurance of vehicles against third-party risks is a
social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to
victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The
provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are
with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to
be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim
petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii)
of the said Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of
the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained
in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have
been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the
insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or
disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time,
are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against
either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability
towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured
was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care
in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding
use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not
disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
(iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid
their liability must not only establish the available defence(s)
raised in the said proceedings but must also establish “breach”
on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof
wherefor would be on them.
(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the
said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the
part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding
holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to
drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be
allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said
breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so
fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions
would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of
“fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the
insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act.
(vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken
reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence
produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil
the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in
each case.
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a
person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies
would be liable to satisfy the decree.
(ix) The Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165
read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in
respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or
damage to property of third party arising in use of motor
vehicle. The said power of the Tribunal is not restricted to
decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on
one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the
course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to
decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the
Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide
disputes inter se between the insurer and the insured. The
decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between
the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim
for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon
is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided
in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the
award in favour of the claimants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the
Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has
satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the
provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as
interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the
insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the
compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled
to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Such
determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and
the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be
recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the
Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as
arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the
recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-
section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit
the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days
from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with the
proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to
cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the
insurer to recover the amount paid under the contract of
insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse to by
the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of the
insurer against the insured by relegating them to the remedy
before regular court in cases where on given facts and
circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay
the adjudication of the claims of the victims.'
[Emphasis supplied by this Court]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
18. Following Swaran Singh's Case, Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pappu's Case [Three Judge Bench] [relied on by the learned Counsel for
the appellant / insurance company] observed inter-alia that when the
defence of the insurance company is that the driver did not possess a valid
driving licence, then the onus would shift upon the insurance company
only after the basic facts are proved by the owner which are within his/her
knowledge. The observation and the necessary factual context to
appreciate the same are captured in Paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the
Judgment in Pappu's Case, which read thus:
'12. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004
SCC (Cri) 733] has noticed the defences available to the
insurance company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company is entitled to take a
defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an
unauthorised person or the person driving the vehicle did not
have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on the
insurance company only after the owner of the offending
vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge
that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to
drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the
relevant time.
13. In the present case, Respondent 1 owner of the
offending vehicle merely raised a vague plea in the written
statement that the offending Vehicle No. DIL 5955 was being
driven by a person having valid driving licence. He did not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
disclose the name of the driver and his other details. Besides,
Respondent 1 did not enter the witness box or examine any
witness in support of this plea. Respondent 2 insurance
company in the written statement has plainly refuted that plea
and also asserted that the offending vehicle was not driven by
an authorised person and having valid driving licence.
Respondent 1 owner of the offending vehicle did not produce
any evidence except a driving licence of one Joginder Singh,
without any specific stand taken in the pleadings or in the
evidence that the same Joginder Singh was, in fact, authorised
to drive the vehicle in question at the relevant time. Only then
would onus shift, requiring Respondent 2 insurance company to
rebut such evidence and to produce other evidence to
substantiate its defence. Merely producing a valid insurance
certificate in respect of the offending truck was not enough for
Respondent 1 to make the insurance company liable to
discharge his liability arising from rash and negligent driving
by the driver of his vehicle. The insurance company can be
fastened with the liability on the basis of a valid insurance
policy only after the basic facts are pleaded and established by
the owner of the offending vehicle that the vehicle was not only
duly insured but also that it was driven by an authorised person
having a valid driving licence. Without disclosing the name of
the driver in the written statement or producing any evidence to
substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence
produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was
authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time,
the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated
himself from his liability. The insurance company would
become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded
and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle.'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
19. In Pappu's Case, the owner of the offending vehicle entered
appearance, filed written statement but remained evasive about the driver's
name and licence particulars. But in the present case, the owner of the
offending motorcycle (first respondent) remained ex-parte and the second
respondent took leave of the Court to raise all the grounds available to the
first respondent under Section 170 of the M.V. Act and thereby stepped
into the shoes of the first respondent. Further, in the instant the driver has
been named as one Murugesan and the F.I.R. has also been laid against
him by stating that he operated the offending vehicle. It is settled law that
the person who alleges breach must prove the same with cogent evidence
and in case of contract of insurance, failure thereof on the part of insurance
company means it cannot be absolved of its liability on that ground.
Moreover, in Swaran Singh's Case [followed in Pappu's Case] it was laid
down that the burden always lies upon the insurance company to prove its
defence and that no criteria can be laid down as to how the insurer is to
discharge its burden. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that
the ratio in Pappu's Case was on its own facts and the facts of the instant
case being distinguishable therefrom, Pappu's Case is not applicable to the
instant case. This Court is of the view that when the first respondent
remains ex-parte and when the second respondent steps into the shoes of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
the owner / first respondent, it is solely upon the second respondent to
prove its defences.
20. Though the burden of proof rests solely on the insurance
company, the nature of proof varies as held in Swaran Singh's Case and as
rightly contended by Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned Counsel for the appellant.
In view of Section 133 of the M.V. Act and in view of Rule 376 of the
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it is the duty of the owner of the
motorcycle to furnish the details of the driver of the motorcycle, that too in
the absence or demise of the driver. The Inspector, Road Transport
Authority is empowered to collect the driving licence particulars from the
accused as well as from the owner. The Investigating Officer is also
empowered to do so. In this case, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, while
inspecting the motorcycle, found that the driving licence of the driver was
not produced. The first respondent did not choose to contest the claim
petition and hence, he was called absent and set ex-parte by the Tribunal.
In these circumstances, the insurance company rightly sent Ex-R.4 - Notice
dated December 5, 2018 calling upon the first respondent to produce the
driving licence of the driver who drove first respondent's offending
motorcycle at the material point of time. The insurance company has thus
taken steps to prove its defence. Despite receiving the notice, the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
respondent did not furnish the driving licence details nor did he send any
reply. In the absence of any particulars about the driving licence and when
the alleged driver is no more, it would be least possible for the insurance
company to establish that the driver did not hold a valid driving licence.
Accepting the submissions made by Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned Counsel
for the appellant, this Court is of the view that examining the RTO in cases
where not even a single information about the licence is produced, would
prove to be futile for the insurance company. The learned Counsel rightly
placed reliance on Sithiga Yasmeen's Case [cited supra] for that
proposition. When there is no licence or licence particulars disclosed or
when owner or driver as the case may be withholds such information
within his knowledge, the insurer cannot be compelled to summon RTO.
Summoning is required only when licencing is pleaded and sufficient
particulars are available on record. The scenario would have been different
if there was some information about the driving licence of the driver, or
when the defence of the insurance company is that the licence is a fake or
invalid one. In such scenarios, examining the RTO would be fruitful. But
the insurance company cannot be made to prove something out of thin air
i.e., in the absence of any particulars about the driving licence by
summoning the RTO. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view
that the insurance company discharged its initial burden by sending Ex-R.4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
- Notice and that as the first respondent withheld the licence particulars
without assigning any reason even after receipt of Ex-R.4, adverse
inference as per Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has to be drawn
against the first respondent that the first respondent's driver was driving the
motorcycle without having any valid driving licence. The Tribunal ought to
have made an adverse inference against the first respondent, but the
Tribunal failed to do so. The first respondent violated the policy condition.
Hence, the second respondent / insurance company shall satisfy the award
amount and recover the same from the first respondent. The points that
arose for consideration are answered accordingly.
21. The Judgment of this Court in Branch Manager Reliance
General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vellore -vs- Prasannavathi, reported in
2026:MHC:576, wherein it was held that the insurance company failed to
prove its defence that the driver did not hold a valid licence. Unlike the
instant case, the insurance company therein failed to take any step to prove
its defence. It did not even examine the driver of the offending vehicle
therein who was alive. Hence, the same is distinguishable on facts.
22. There is no quarrel with Amrit Paul Singh's Case relied on by
the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company, but
it is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
23. The compensation as modified by this Court is tabulated below:
S. Amount Amount now
No. Head awarded by the re-quantified by
Tribunal this Court
1. Medical Expenses Rs.5,55,053/- Rs.3,91,991/-
2. Transportation charges Rs.35,000/- Rs.35,000/-
3. Extra Nourishment Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
4. Attender charges Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/-
5. Loss of Income Rs.12,92,760/- Rs.12,92,760/-
6. Discomfort and pain and
suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
1,50,000/-
Total Rs.21,52,813/- Rs.19,39,751/-
CONCLUSION
24. In view of the foregoing narrative, the appellant / insurance
company is directed to deposit the reduced award amount of
Rs.19,39,751/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Thirty-Nine Thousand Seven
Hundred and Fifty-One Only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, to the credit
of M.C.O.P. No.2322 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Special Court No.II, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, less the
amount if any already deposited, within a period of two (2) months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and shall be entitled to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
recover the same from the first respondent, without the need to initiate a
separate Suit, as if an Award was passed against the first respondent in
favour of second respondent for pay and recovery. On such deposit being
made, the respondent/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same, by filing
proper application. In all other aspects, the Award of the Tribunal shall
hold good.
25. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part as
indicated above. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no
order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[N.S.K., J.] [R.S.V., J.]
24.02.2026
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
TK
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Special Court No.II,
Court of Small Causes
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK
C.M.A. NO.134 OF 2026
24.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:13 pm )
