New India Assurance Company Limited vs Narayan Singh

2025 INSC 1178 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 19976 OF 2019

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ….Appellant (s) VERSUS

NARAYAN SINGH & ORS. ….Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted. Heard learned Advocate for the

appellant.

2. This appeal preferred by the Insurance Company

is directed against a common judgment and order dated

25.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand

whereby the High Court dismissed the Appeal from Order

No. 562 of 2007 preferred by the Insurance Company as

Signature Not Verified well as dismissed the Cross Appeal No. 2 of 2018 of the Digitally signed by

claimants.

NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.09.26 18:33:30 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 7

2.1 Before the High Court, award dated 29.09.2007 of

the Motor Accident Compensation Tribunal, Haldwari,

Nainital, in Motor Accident Case No. 175 of 2006 was

called in question. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.

3,87,000/- as compensation to the claimants, with 7%

interest from the date of filing of the application till the

payment, recoverable from the Insurance Company.

2.2 The appellant-Insurance Company had filed a

review application against the aforesaid judgment and

award of the Tribunal, which was dismissed by order

dated 12.10.2007. The order passed in the review

application was not challenged before the High Court.

3. Basic facts in the background may be noticed.

One 21 year old, Hem Singh Mehta, serving as security

guard and earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month, met

with accident on 21.06.2006. He was coming to

Haldwani from Bilaspur. At around 12.30 in the morning,

when he was waiting for a bus near Tanda Chowk, the

truck driven a rashly and negligently, bearing No. UP-02-

Page 2 of 7 2354 hit the said Hem Singh. Hem Singh died while

undergoing treatment.

3.1 Recording the findings that the deceased died due

to rash and negligent driving of the truck, the Tribunal

proceeded to adjudicate and assess the compensation

under the various heads. The compensation of Rs.

3,87,000/- was awarded. The owner of the offending

vehicle produced insurance policy and stated that the

said insurance policy was valid from 17.06.2006 to

16.06.2007. On the basis thereof the Tribunal concluded

that since the accident had taken place on 21.06.2006,

the coverage of the policy was available.

3.2 After the judgment and award of the Tribunal as

aforementioned, the Insurance Company filed a review

application raising a ground that when Insurance policy

bearing No. 353800/31/06/02/00002785 filed in the

claim proceedings by the owner was sent for verification

to the issuing office at Rohtak, after verification the

competent office informed that the Insurance Policy was

valid only for the period from 28.06.2006 to 27.06.2007

Page 3 of 7 and that the owner of the offending vehicle had

fraudulently changed the validity dates to show that it

was valid from 17.06.2006. The Tribunal, however, did

not entertain the review application and repeated the

same by order dated 12.10.2007 on the ground that it

had no power under the Act to review.

3.3 As stated above, the Insurance Company

preferred an appeal by making a submission that the

judgment and decree of the Claims Tribunal was based

on misrepresentation as the dates of the validity period of

the insurance police was wrongly projected and it was a

fraudulent act on the part of the owner to change the

dates. The claimants filed appeal for enhancement.

4. The High Court held that the income of the

deceased was rightly taken by the Tribunal at Rs.

36,000/- per annum, that the dependency was assessed

to be at Rs. 24,000/- and by taking multiplier of 15, the

compensation was worked out which was just

appropriate compensation. The High Court noted that

Page 4 of 7 the Tribunal had also awarded, the sums towards loss of

estate and funeral expenses.

4.1 The High Court observed that the order dated

12.10.2007 passed in the review application of the

Insurance Company was not challenged in the appeal,

thus dismissing the appeal as well as the cross

objections. Only the Insurance Company preferred the

present appeal. No further challenge was raised by the

claimants against the judgment of the High Court

dismissing the Cross Appeal of the claimants.

5. The main contention of the Insurance Company

has been that the insurance policy when verified was for

the period of 28.06.2006 to 27.06.2007 and on the date

of the accident there was no insurance coverage, and the

policy was not in operation.

5.1 It is to be noted that this contention was raised

by the Insurance Company only in the review petition.

Nothing was produced in the main claim proceedings

because of which the Tribunal proceeded on the basis

Page 5 of 7 that the insurance policy was valid on the date of the

accident. Though the allegation of fraud is levelled but it

could not be proved by the insurer.

5.2 Furthermore, the order dated 12.10.2007 passed

in the review application was not challenged by the

Insurance Company before the High Court for the

reasons best known to it.

6. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the

judgment and order of the High Court. However, in the

totality of the facts and circumstances when it was

brought on record that upon a verification of the policy,

its period did not cover the date when accident occurred,

it would subserve the ends of justice if the appellant-

Insurance Company is allowed to recover 50% of the

compensation from the owner and the driver in

accordance with law.

6.1 If any part of the compensation is not deposited

by the appellant-insurance company, the same shall be

Page 6 of 7 deposited by it before the Tribunal concerned within six

weeks from today.

7. The impugned judgment and order is partially

modified accordingly. The present appeal is dismissed

subject to the above modification.

………………………………….. J.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN

…..…………………………….. J.

N.V. ANJARIA

NEW DELHI;

September 26, 2025

Page 7 of 7