Full Judgment Text
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
well as dismissed the Cross Appeal No. 2 of 2018 of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.09.26
18:33:30 IST
Reason:
claimants.
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
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
well as dismissed the Cross Appeal No. 2 of 2018 of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.09.26
18:33:30 IST
Reason:
claimants.
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