Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Mohadin Akbar Mujavar & Ors.

Not on board. Mentioned for production as the present appeal arises from the same accident as First Appeal No. 294 of 2023 and connected appeal , which were disposed of by this Hon’ble Court by order dated 20th November 2025. It is therefore submitted that the present appeal may be disposed of by passing a similar order.

The Appellant-Insurer takes exception to judgment and award dated 15^th October 2022 passed in MACP No.1733 of 2017, whereby the claim made by the original claimants was allowed by the Tribunal.

It would suffice to say that the Original Claimants claimed compensation arising out of the vehicular accident occurred on 19^th April 2017 involving Maruti Car bearing No.MH-02-NA-0825. It is the case of the claimants that, the driver of the offending vehicle lost control over the vehicle, which resulted into the said vehicle dashing against tree. Consequently, the occupants of the vehicle sustained injuries and succumbed thereto.

Offence came to be registered vide Crime No.47 of 2017 with Rasayani Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle filed written statement denying any negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in occurrence of the accident of the vehicle. It is claimed that, the vehicle was duly insured with the Insurer under total packaged premium policy. The Insurer, in its written statement, denied the contentions made by the claimant as well as the existence of a valid insurance policy covering the offending vehicle. It was claimed that the policy in force did not extend coverage to the claimant’s claim. The Insurer further contended that no additional premium had been paid by the Insured to cover the occupants of the vehicle, and therefore, the Insurer is not liable to pay any compensation.

The learned Tribunal allowed the claim and directed the owner and Insurer of the vehicle to jointly and severally pay compensation to the original claimants.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that, the Insurer desires to take exception to the impugned judgment and award essentially on the ground that the policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle was Act policy and since no premium except third party premium was paid, the occupants of the said vehicle are not entitled to receive any compensation from the Insurer. It is also submitted that, there was negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle which disentitle the Claimants of their claim. In respect of death claim, the quantum of compensation is sought to be challenged on the ground that disability accepted by the Tribunal is on higher side.

Learned counsel for the Claimants supported the impugned judgment and award with the contention that there is evidence on record to indicate that the vehicle in question was insured not under an Act Policy but Comprehensive Policy. It is argued that the Insurer has failed to prove anything on record to deny liability of payment of compensation on the quantum of compensation. It is further canvassed that, on the basis of the evidence on record, the claim determined by the Tribunal is correct and requires no interference therein.

Insofar as other issues sought to be raised by the Insurer in respect of quantum of compensation and negligence is concerned, , there is sufficient evidence placed on record by the Claimant in order to prove the same. Nothing has come on record to discard the evidence of Claimant.

As far as the issue of coverage of the offending vehicle under the policy entitling the Claimants to compensation is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the policy in question, as evident from the policy document on record, is admittedly a comprehensive (package) policy. Unlike in Act policy, other premiums are paid by the insured. In the light of the said documentary evidence on record, the onus has shifted upon the Insurer to prove that no premium was paid in respect of the occupants of the vehicle. In this regard though the Insurer has led evidence of Vivek Karve, Manager, his testimony does not indicate about non-payment of additional premium to cover occupants. On the contrary during the cross-examination, it has come on record that he has not issued any notice to the owner of the vehicle denying the liability of the Insurer. The policy document indicates that, there is coverage of liability on death or bodily injury of any person, and needless to say that it would be considered as a contract between Insurer and Insured.

Having regard to the evidence on record, it can be said with certainty that the Claimants were successful in proving their case on probability whereas the Insurer was not able to discharge the onus which got shifted upon it.

The learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award has rightly taken into consideration the plea as well as the evidence led by both sides on the issue and concluded that there is liability on the Insurer to pay the compensation. Since, there is order of payment of compensation first and to recover it from Insured, this Courts find no reason or justification to cause interference in the order and judgment impugned.

As a result of the above discussion, the Appeal stands dismissed.

All pending Applications, stand disposed of.