Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Badavath Balkishan
2025 Latest Caselaw 5976 Tel

Telangana High Court

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Badavath Balkishan on 15 October, 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD

                                       ***

                   M.A.C.M.A. Nos.22 and 922 of 2024
   Between:

   IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
                                                                  Appellant

                                       VERSUS


   1. Badavath Balkishan and others
                                                               Respondents.

                   ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 15.10.2025

              THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR


   1.     Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
          may be allowed to see the Judgments?            : Yes


   2.     Whether the copies of judgment may be
          Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?               : Yes


   3.     Whether His Lordship wishes to
          see the fair copy of the Judgment?              : Yes




                                               ___________________________
                                                GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
                                            2



           * THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

                 + M.A.C.M.A. Nos.22 and 922 of 2024

COMMON JUDGMENT:

%Dated 15.10.2025

# Between:

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Appellant

VERSUS

1. Badavath Balkishan and others Respondents.

! Counsel for Appellant : Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy

^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy Sri S.Surender Reddy

< GIST :

> HEAD NOTE :

? Cases referred :

1. MAC Appeal No.7 to 2020 to 09 to 2020

2. C/FA/4114/2009 dated 28.01.2022

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

M.A.C.M.A. Nos.22 and 922 of 2024 COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy and Sri S.Surender Reddy,

learned counsel for the respondents at length and perused the

record.

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2024 is filed by the Appellant-

Insurance Company being aggrieved by the order passed by the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at

Nizamabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.67 of 2018

dated 03.08.2023 in respect of deceased Badavath Ravi Kumar,

who, while travelling along with his friend Sandeep on motor bike,

met with an accident with an oil tanker bearing No. AP- 16TD-

4511 (crime vehicle), allowing the claim granting compensation of

Rs.31,08,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

3. M.A.C.M.A.No.922 of 2024 is filed by the appellant-

Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award dated

29.12.2023 passed in M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2018 by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at

Kamareddy in respect of deceased Sandeep, who along with his

friend Badavath Ravi Kumar was travelling on a motor cycle met

with an accident with an oil tanker bearing No.AP-16TD-4511,

allowing the claim granting compensation of Rs.16,55,625/-

proportionately along with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

4. Since, the accident occurred on 22.11.2017 at about 2.30

hours where both the deceased while travelling on bike met with an

accident by dashing against an oil tanker. Therefore, both these

Appeals are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this

common judgment.

5. The facts leading to file claims by the respective claimants

before the respective learned Tribunals are that on 22-11-2017 at

about 2.30 hours near Dharma kanta enroute to Nizamabad-

Dichpally Main Road, Dichpalli, the deceased Badavath Ravi

Kumar along with his friend Sandeep started on their motor bike

bearing No.TS-16EN-5541, and in the meantime, the driver of

tanker (lorry) bearing No.AP-16TD-4511 parked on the road

without taking any precautions or giving any signals, due to which

the deceased dashed into the backside of the lorry, as result of

which both the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on

the spot.

6. The police of Dichpally registered a case in Cr.No.220 of

2017 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending

vehicle.

7. It was contended before the respective learned Tribunals that

the deceased Badavath Ravi Kumar in MACMA No.22/2024 is

aged 26 years working as Chemical Engineer in Granules India

Limited, Jeedimetla and earning Rs.20,717/-, in which the father,

mother and sisters are the claimants before the learned Tribunal in

MVOP No.67 of 2018.

8. In respect of MACMA No.922 of 2024, the deceased viz.,

Badavath Sandeep was also aged about 26 years and was a

Government employee working as Branch Post Master at

Thumpally village of Sirikonda Mandal and earning Rs.16,000/-

p.m.. His parents along with brother are the claimants before the

learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2018.

9. Before the learned Tribunals, the appellant-Insurance

Company denied the allegations made against it including its

liability to pay compensation to the respondents herein, and

pleaded that on verification of the records, it is revealed that the

said policy No.1-2MCCWVVT was issued in favour of one

Appanna Kishore Babu for the vehicle bearing No.AP-16TB-2240

and the period of insurance covered by the said policy is from

02.03.2014 to 01.03.2015. It was further contended that the

appellant-Insurance Company has not issued any insurance policy

No.1-2MCCWVVT valid from 05.03.2017 to 04.03.2018 in favour

of owner of vehicle bearing No.AP-16TY-4511. Therefore, the said

policy is a forged and fabricated document. It is also contended

that the amounts claimed are excessive.

10. It was contended by the appellant in respect of

M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2018 that the policy document submitted before

the police and mentioned in the Claim Petition are false and

fabricated, which were brought into existence with a mala fide

intention. The Oil Tanker (lorry) bearing No.AP-16TD-4511 was

not issued with the said policy and that there was negligence on the

part of the driver of the motor bike since at the time of accident, the

rider of the motor cycle bearing No.TS-16EN-5541 drove the said

vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the oil tanker,

which was stationed on the road by taking full precautions. It was

further contended that the accident occurred due to the total

negligence on the part of the deceased only. And that the claim

petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner

and insurer of motor cycle bearing No.TS-16EN-5541 are

necessary and proper parties. Therefore, contended that on this

ground, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. In M.V.O.P.No.67 of 2018, the learned Tribunal framed the

following issues and Additional issue for consideration:

"1) Whether the accident took place on 22.11.2017 at about 2.30 hours near Dharma Kanta, Opp. Jio Shop, Dichpally, RS on Nizamabad Dichpally Main Road, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District under the limits of PS Dichpally due to rash and negligent driving of Oil Tanker bearing No.AP-16TD-4511 by its owner causing the death of Badavath Ravi Kumar?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3) To what relief?

Additional Issue:

4) Whether the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP-16TD-4511 obtained insurance policy coverage for the said vehicle by the time of accident?"

12. In M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2018, the learned Tribunal framed the

following issue for consideration:

"1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of oil tanker lorry bearing No.AP-16TD-

4511?"

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, if so, from whom and what just amount?

3) To what relief?

13. In respect of M.V.O.P.No.67 of 2018, the claimants examined

P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked. On behalf of the

appellant-Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1

to B-9 were marked.

14. In respect of M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2018, the claimants examined

P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of the

appellant-Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1

to B-6 were marked.

15. Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant

vehemently contended that the learned Tribunals failed to

appreciate that the appellant-Insurance Company never issued any

policy to the crime vehicle bearing No.AP-16TD-4511 and that the

policy produced before the learned Tribunals is fake and fabricated

one.

16. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant that the learned Tribunals failed to appreciate the fact that

in order to prove the insurance policy, the appellant-company has

adduced its evidence by examining R.Ws.1 and 2 and exhibiting

Exs.B-1 to B-9, wherein it was brought to the notice of the learned

Tribunal that the Motor Insurance Policy P400 issued by it consists

of 8 digits i.e. Number or Alpha-numeric, whereas in the case on

hand, as per the Motor Vehicle Inspector report, the particulars

mentioned in the claim petition P400 policy is mentioned as

9968567, which is of 7 digits only. Therefore, it is contended that

the policy produced by the appellants is a fake policy and the

appellant Insurance Company never issued any policy to the crime

vehicle and that the learned Tribunals without appreciating the

same, erroneously mulcted the liability.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended the

learned Tribunals failed to appreciate the fact that the photocopy of

the policy produced and marked by the claimants i.e.

I-2MCCWVVT is issued in respect of vehicle bearing No.AP-

16TB-2240 vide policy No.1-2MCCWVVT-P400-86913412 which

is valid from 02.03.2014 to 01.03.2015, whereas the crime vehicle

in the present case is AP-16TD-4511 and the date of accident is

22.11.2017, and that in spite of bringing the said fact to the notice

of the learned Tribunals, the Tribunals, without considering the

same, erroneously fastened the liability.

18. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant that the learned Tribunals failed to appreciate the fact that

immediately after noticing the fake policy, the appellant Insurance

Company has lodged complaint before the Commissioner of

Police, Vijayawada and also issued notices to the 1st respondent

and also to the Road Transport Authority, Vijayawada, which itself

is a bona fide truth of taking positive steps which are required to be

taken by the appellant company, and that the learned Tribunals, for

the best reasons known, fastened the liability on the appellant

holding that it is a dispute between the Owner of the vehicle and

Insurance company and rights of third party cannot be affected, and

the said finding of the learned Tribunals is erroneous and contrary

to the settled law.

19. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the

learned Tribunals have failed to appreciate the basic principle of

contract of insurance that it is not a violation or breach as to the

terms and conditions of the Policy, but there is no policy issued at

all by the appellant Company. As such, the findings of the learned

Tribunals that the dispute is between the owner of the vehicle and

Insurance Company and rights of third party cannot be affected, is

not at all correct and it is erroneous and contrary to the basic

principle of contract of insurance, and as such, on this ground also,

the claims made by the claimants are liable to be rejected.

20. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that when

there is no contract of insurance, ordering pay and recovery does

not and cannot arise at all and that the appellant-insurance

Company is not liable to satisfy the awards passed by the

respective Tribunals under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1989 (for short 'the Act') and that the Insurance Company is

entitled to seek protection under Section 149 of the Act.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the

learned Tribunals failed to appreciate that the deceased drove the

motor cycle with uncontrollable speed rashly, negligently without

following traffic rules and wearing helmet, and because of his

speed, he could not control his vehicle and dashed to the lorry from

behind and contributed for the cause of accident, and therefore, the

deceased himself is the main instrumental to the commission of

offence and thereby the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the

compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended

that in the absence of examination of employer, the learned

Tribunals relying on the self-serving statement of claimants held

the earnings of the deceased persons as Rs.20,717/- and

Rs.16,000/- per month respectively and calculated the

compensation on that amount, is excessive and contrary to the

settled law.

22. Learned counsel for the appellant finally contended that the

claim of the claimants is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of

necessary and proper parties i.e. the insurance company of the two

wheeler has not been made as a party.

23. On the other hand, Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy and Sri

S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents in both the

Appeals vehemently contended that orders passed by the learned

Tribunals are well reasoned based on material available on record

and evidence therein. It is further contended that in the absence of

any crime being registered against the owner of the vehicle nor any

FIR is lodged against the fake document, the burden of proof lies

on the Insurance Company to disprove the version. Learned

counsel for the respondents further contended that the claimants

being a third party, can only produce photocopy of the insurance

policy document whereas the owner of the crime vehicle is not

examined, and as such, the liability is cast upon the Insurance

Company to pay the compensation.

24. Learned counsel for the respondents finally contended that the

orders passed by the respective learned Tribunals are well reasoned

and do not call for any interference and the Appeals are liable to be

dismissed.

25. On perusal of the evidence adduced before the respective

learned Tribunals, during cross-examination of P.W.1 Badavath

Balkishan, one of the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.67 of 2018 admitted

that he is not an eye-witness to the incident and he is not in a

position to say the registration number of the crime vehicles.

During cross-examination of P.W.2 Pawar Mohan, another

claimant deposed that the deceased belongs to his caste and that the

motor cycle hit the stationed lorry tanker from the back side and

the accident occurred at 2.30 A.M., and that the road where the

accident took place is of 80 feet width with a divider.

26. R.W.1 D.V.K. Prasad, Manager - Claims Legal of appellant

Company deposed during his chief-examination that the Oil Tanker

bearing No.AP-16TD-4511 is not insured with the appellant-

Insurance Company and that there is no existing policy in respect

of the said Oil Tanker covering the risk of accident as on the date

of accident, and that the Insurance Policy on which the respondents

relying was not issued by the appellant-Company and it is a fake

and fabricated insurance policy and as such, in the absence of

contract of insurance between the appellant and the respondent

Nos.1 and 2, the appellant Company has no liability to indemnity

the owner of the vehicle and as such, the claim against the

appellant is liable to be dismissed. R.W.1 further deposed that on

verification of records of the appellant-Company, the Xerox copy

of the policy submitted by the claimants i.e. 1-2MCCWVVT was

issued to vehicle bearing No.AP-16TB-2240 vide policy No.1-

2MCCQCCR-P400-86913412 valid from 02.03.2014 to

01.03.2015, and as such, the appellant Company has not issued any

policy covering the date of loss (22.11.2017) for the crime vehicle

bearing No.AP-16TD-4511 and that the policy filed by the

claimants is fabricated for the purpose of false claim, and pleaded

that the appellant-Company is not liable to pay compensation to the

claimants. R.W.1 further deposed in his evidence that the claim

petition was filed suppressing the fact of No Policy Coverage and

the claim petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs under

Section 35(A) of the Act and that the claim petition is bad for mis-

joinder of parties.

27. With respect to the evidence of R.W.2, he also pleaded that

the Oil Tanker is not insured with the appellant Company and there

is no existing policy in respect of the said Oil Tanker covering the

risk of accident as on the date of accident i.e. 22.11.2017, and the

insurance policy, on which claimants are placing reliance, is not

issued by the appellant-Company and it is a fake and fabricated

insurance policy created for the purpose of this case and as such,

there is no contract of insurance between the appellant Company

and the owner to indemnify the owner and sought for dismissal of

the claim petition. R.W.2 further deposed that as per the Insurance

Premium Register dated 05.03.2017, the Appellant Insurance

Company has not collected any premium for vehicle bearing

No.AP-16TD-4511 and there is no existing policy for the said

vehicle covering the risk as on the date of accident. To substantiate

the same, R.W.2 produced the Premium Register dated 05.03.2017

for the insurance policies issued by the appellant-company and the

same is also marked as Ex.B-9.

28. However, during cross-examination R.W.2 stated that Ex.B-9

is a computed generated data of transaction obtained from

Vijayawada Branch, and that the name of insured and the code of

the agent are mentioned therein. He further stated that the data in

Ex.B-9 pertains to the period from 01.03.2017 and 15.03.2017, and

that the appellant company is not liable to pay any compensation.

29. On perusal of the documents marked in M.V.O.P.No.67 of

2018, Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R., Ex.A-2 is the

certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A-3 is the copy of the Post

Mortem Examination report, Ex.A-4 is the attested copy of the

driving licence, Ex.A-5 is the copy of consolidated Marks Memo

of deceased Ravi Kumar, Ex.A-6 is the copy of Provisional

Certificate of deceased Ravi Kumar. ExA-7 is the attested copy of

salary of the deceased Ravi Kumar and Ex.A-8 is the copy of the

insurance policy certificate issued by the appellant-company and

Ex.A-9 is the copy of accident report from the Motor Vehicle

Inspector. Whereas Ex.B-1 is the office copy of notice dated

15.05.2018 issued to the owner of the Oil Tanker and RTA,

Vijayawada, Ex.B-2 is the Postal receipts, Ex.B-3 is returned

postal cover of the owner of oil tanker, Ex.B-4 is the postal

acknowledgment of RTO Office, Vijayawada, Ex.B-5 is the copy

of complaint to the Police Commissioner, Vijayawada regarding

fake policy dated 27.06.2018 issued by Registered Post With

Acknowledgment Due, Ex.B-6 is postal receipt, Ex.B-7 is postal

acknowledgment for Ex.B-5, Ex.B-8 is the Insurance Policy No.1-

2MCCWVVT-P400-86913412 (with eight digits) and Ex.B-9 is

Insurance Premium Register dated 05.03.2017 for the insurance

policies issued by the appellant-Company.

30. On examining the documents marked, in Ex.A-2 copy of

charge sheet relied upon by the respondents, it was mentioned that

the owner of the vehicle voluntarily confessed to have committed

the offence and produced the driving license, Registration

Certificate and Insurance, and the same were verified as valid

document, appears to be issued for the purpose of obtaining bail.

Similarly, Ex.A-8 is photo copy of the policy of the appellant

insurance Company, which as pointed out by the learned counsel

for the appellant that in the said policy at the left side, the

Registration Number refers to AP-16TD-4511, but at the right side

mentioned as 'Policy :1-2MCWVT P-400 Policy # 9998567'.

Whereas in the MVI report Ex.A-9, the policy number is

mentioned as 9998567. Learned counsel for the appellant

contended that the insurance policy is altered and fabricated since,

it is a 7 digit number, it should be specifying the existence of 8

digits as it should have been 86913412 as marked at Ex.B-8.

31. Ex.B-1 is the office copy of the notice issued by the appellant

Company to the owner of the vehicle with respect to Fake

Policy/Cover Note bearing No.9968567 of the vehicle bearing

No.AP-16DT-4511. Ex.B-5 is the complaint dated 27.06.2018

addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada

complaining regarding registration of FIR for investigation/

Enquiry regarding issuance of fake/forged policy bearing

No.9968567, which was never issued by the appellant-Company,

and requested the Commissioner of Police to take cognizance of

the matter and register a complaint under the provisions of law and

investigate into the matter in order to penalize the culprits involved

in such illegal activities.

32. On careful perusal of the documentary record discloses

marked infirmities in the policy document relied upon by the

claimants. The alleged policy bearing No. 1-AMCCWT/P400

Policy No. 9995677 is deficient in several material respects. It is

devoid of any QR code or digital authentication feature, contains

no GST number, no SAC code, no record of prior policy history for

the vehicle for the relevant policy period. The totality of these

discrepancies demonstrates that the document does not possess the

authenticity expected of a genuine insurance certificate.

33. Per contra, the document produced and relied upon by the

appellant-insurer, namely Policy No. 1-2MCCWVVT-P400-

86913412, is in the insurer's prescribed official format, carries a

QR code and digital authentication, and corresponds with the

entries in the insurer's Policy Issue Register and database. The

insurer has, therefore, produced verifiable contemporaneous

records which prima facie contradict the authenticity of the

document presented by the claimants.

34. This court is of the view that it is a fundamental principle of

evidence and logic that no litigant can reasonably be required to

prove a negative fact. It is neither practicable nor just, to compel

the insurer company to demonstrate affirmatively that it did not at

any time issue a particular instrument which the claimant produces

as the basis for a claim. The law does not countenance requiring a

party to undertake the impossible rather, the onus remains upon the

party who asserts the positive fact. Here, that a valid insurance

policy covering the vehicle existed at the time of the accident, is to

prove that assertion.

35. Where an insurer, in proper exercise of its rights, places

before the Tribunal credible and verifiable records negating the

existence of the policy relied upon by a claimant, the evidentiary

onus shifts upon the claimant to satisfactorily account for and

prove the source and genuineness of the document produced. It is

not open for the claimant to rest on a photocopy of an unverified

document when the insurer has produced cogent, official records

showing non-correspondence between the claimant's document and

the insurer's books.

36. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states:

"The procurement, source and authenticity of an alleged insurance certificate are matters peculiarly within the knowledge and control of the person who asserts the existence of that certificate. Accordingly, the claimants, having relied upon the disputed policy, must furnish credible evidence, such as premium paid cash receipts, e-mail confirmation of the said policy or other contemporaneous electronic communications from the insurer to demonstrate the authenticity of the said policy."

37. This court reiterates that the evidence tendered in support of a

civil liability must be authentic, reliable and of unimpaired

integrity. A photocopy of a document, inconsistent with the issuing

authority's official records and lacking all customary

authentication marks, cannot be permitted to found legal liability.

38. Therefore, no privity of contract has been established between

the owner of the offending vehicle (AP-16TD-4511) and the

appellant-Insurance Company for the relevant period. The learned

Tribunals' finding that the insurer must first discharge the award

and thereafter recover from the owner is unsustainable where the

very existence of the asserted contract of insurance remains

unproved.

39. As relied by the claimant in the judgment of the High Court of

Sikkim, Gangtok before the learned Tribunal in Branch Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Padam Behadur Rai

and others 1 wherein there was no complaint lodged. The said case

has no relevance to the present case on hand, since a complaint was

lodged by the appellant-Insurance Company before the

Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada as well as issued notice to the

owner of the crime vehicle.

40. The other judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the

claimants before the learned Tribunal in Oriental Insurance

Company Vs. Jayeshbhai Bhagubhai Patel 2 to contend that the

dispute regarding the fake policy is between the owner of the

vehicle and the Insurance Company and rights of the third party

claimant cannot be affected and that the insurance policy has

neither entered into any notice correspondence with the owner of

MAC Appeal No.7 to 2020 to 09 to 2020

C/FA/4114/2009 dated 28.01.2022

the vehicle regarding such policy being fake nor any legal

proceeding is found to be initiated against the owner of the vehicle

or any such other person by the Insurance Company regarding the

fake policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot shrug away

its liability to pay the compensation.

41. The facts of the aforesaid case are not applicable to the facts

and circumstances of the present case, though in the above case the

insurer had alleged that the policy produced by the claimant was

fabricated, the Court therein had reached its conclusion on account

of the insurer's failure to substantiate such allegation with any

contemporaneous record or official proof. The finding was thus

based on the insufficiency of the insurer's evidence, not on any

legal principle absolving claimants from proving the authenticity of

the policy they rely upon. In the case on hand, the situation is

materially different, the appellant-Insurance Company has

produced original policy and a complaint lodged with the

Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, thereby providing

affirmative and verifiable proof that the disputed policy was never

issued by it.

42. For the aforesaid reasons and mindful of sympathy for the

grievous human loss to the claimants, this Court is unable to fix

any liability on the appellant-Insurance Company in the absence of

existence of a valid insurance policy covering the crime vehicle on

22nd November, 2017.

43. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the

findings recorded by the learned Tribunals are erroneous and

orders passed are liable to be set aside.

44. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2024 and

M.A.C.M.A.No.922 of 2024 are allowed. Consequently, the orders

passed by the learned Tribunals in M.V.O.P.No.67 of 2018 and

M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2018 respectively are set aside.

45. However, liberty is granted to the claimants to avail

appropriate remedies open to them at law against the owner of the

of the vehicle to claim compensation by proving the genuineness of

the insurance policy.

46. As a sequel, interim orders, if any granted in the Appeals

stands closed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. No order as to costs.

__________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 15.10.2025 Vsv