ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD. vs S.BARKATHULLA

C.M.A.No.1874 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
And
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
C.M.A. No.1874 of 2026
and C.M.P. No.14999 of 2026
M/s. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.,
No.29-35, Narayanasamy Layout,
P.N. Palayam,
rd
Coimbatore – 641 037. ... Appellant/ 3 Respondent
-vs-
1. S. Barkathulla
2. Sajithabanu
3. B. Sailabanu ... Respondents 1 to 3/ Petitioners
4. K. Ramprasath
5. Jayandhi K. ... Respondents 4 & 5/ Respondents 1 & 2
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Motor
Accident Tribunal, V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in M.C.O.P. No.947 of
2021.
For Appellant : Mr. D. Harikrishnan
*
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:14:16 pm )

C.M.A.No.1874 of 2026
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. RAJASEKAR, J.]
This Civil Miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the insurance company
challenging the liability fixed on the appellant/ insurance company, to pay the
compensation, awarded in M.C.O.P. No.947 of 2021 dated 21.07.2025 on the file of
the Motor Accident Tribunal, V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred herein according
to their litigative status and rank before the Tribunal. The brief facts leading to
filing of this appeal are as follows:
2.1 The respondents 1 to 3, as claimants have filed a claim petition,
seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of one
Rahamathulla. According to them, the accident was taken place on 11.11.2020,
near Thirubuvanam on the Madurai – Ramanathapuram Highway, while he was
travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-99-
Q-3305, which was driven by his friend namely Ramprasath, who is the fourth
respondent herein. It is further stated that the said Ramprasath had driven his two
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:14:16 pm )

C.M.A.No.1874 of 2026
wheeler in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the reflector board kept on the road,
hence both deceased Rahamathulla and Ramprasath fell down and sustained severe
injuries, subsequently Rahamathulla succumbed to injuries. Since Rahamathulla is
the rider, the fifth respondent herein is the owner and the appellant herein is the
insurer of the said two wheeler, the liability were cost upon them to pay the
compensation.
2.2 The appellant/ Insurance Company had contested the claim petition
on the ground that the insurance policy issued for the offending vehicle is only an
‘Act Only Policy’, though it is named as ‘Bundled Policy’. It was also contended
that the occupants of the two wheeler could not be covered under the ‘Act Only
Policy’, hence the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
2.3 The Tribunal has considered the above aspects and held that, since
there is a violation of policy condition, the appellant insurance company is directed
to pay the compensation and recover the same from the fifth respondent herein, who
is the owner of the vehicle. Aggrieved over the order of pay and recovery, the
insurance company has come forward with this appeal.
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:14:16 pm )

C.M.A.No.1874 of 2026
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ insurance company
relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.
Balakrishnan and Another [Civil Appeal No.8163 of 2012, dated 20.11.2012] and
contended that, since the policy issued is an ‘Act Only Policy’, the pillion rider
could not be considered as a third party and therefore, he is not covered under the
policy, hence the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation and
the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the appellant and perused the materials available on record.
5. The judgment of the Apex Court cited supra by the learned counsel
for the appellant/ insurance company, wherein the position regarding the ‘Standard
Motor Package Policy’ also called ‘Comprehensive Policy’ was discussed based on
the circular issued by the IRDA dated 16.11.2009 and the Apex Court has held as
follows:
“20. It is also worthy to note that the High Court, after referring to
individual circulars issued by various insurance companies, eventually stated
thus:-
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:14:16 pm )

C.M.A.No.1874 of 2026
“In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the
comprehensive/package policy of a two wheeler covers a pillion
rider and comprehensive/package policy of a private car covers the
occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a
comprehensive/package policy, there is no need for Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the Insurance
Company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion
rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car. In fact, in
view of the TAC’s directives and those of the IRDA, such a plea was
not permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance,
it was done in the present case.”
21. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of
doubt that a “comprehensive/package policy” would cover the liability of
the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is
no cavil that an “Act Policy” stands on a different footing from a
“Comprehensive/Package Policy”. As the circulars have made the position
very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has
commanded the insurance companies stating that a
“Comprehensive/Package Policy” covers the liability, there cannot be any
dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier
pronouncements were rendered in respect of the “Act Policy” which
admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the
policy is a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”, the liability would be covered.
These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi (supra) and,
therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to
think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench
as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the
position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by
the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same.”
6. Whereas in this case, a new policy regime, which was introduced by
the Insurance Company from the year 2018 onwards and as per the ‘Bundled
Insurance Policy’ is concerned, the coverage and the terms and conditions are
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:14:16 pm )

C.M.A.No.1874 of 2026
totally different from the policy, which were in vogue in the name of
‘Comprehensive Policy’ or ‘Act Only Policy’ .
7. We have also elaborately considered the very same question raised
herein, in C.M.A.No.3882 of 2026 dated 25.03.2026 , wherein the following
discussions were made by us:
“8. The policy in the instant case is a Two-wheeler Bundled
Policy. It was also brought to our knowledge that such policies do not
contain terms and conditions which are ordinarily found in standalone
policies. The terms and conditions are very rarely brought to the notice
of the Tribunals and quite often Tribunals are denied the opportunity of
examining whether the policy covers payment of compensation be it for
injury or for death, and the circumstances under which the insurance
company would be liable.
9. The two-wheeler Bundled Policy as a concept was introduced
in the year 2018 by Insurance Companies. This type of policy was
introduced owing to a proactive steps taken by the judiciary, particularly
this Court, which noticed that insurance policies were often not renewed
in time and thereby the Insurance Companies are given a small leverage
and a small window to escape liability, owing to which, injured or legal
representatives of the deceased, suffer due to the lack of immediate
payment of compensation by the Insurance Companies.
10. In a Liability Only Policy, as distinct from Two-wheeler
Bundled Policy, the insurer was legally liable in respect of the following
cases.
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:14:16 pm )

C.M.A.No.1874 of 2026
“LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES
1. Subject to the Limit of liability as laid down in the
schedule hereto, the Company will indemnify the insured in the
event of accident caused by or arising out of the use of the Motor
Vehicle anywhere in India against all sums including claimant's
costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable
to pay in respect of
i. death of or bodily injury to any person so far as it is
necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act.
ii. damage to property other than property belonging to the
insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured
up to the limit specified in the schedule.”
11. In a Two-wheeler Package Policy, the liability extended to
third parties under Section II and was as follows:
“SECTION II - LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES
1. Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the
Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event
of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured
vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally
liable to pay in respect of:-
(i) death of or bodily injury to any person including
occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not
carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to
meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not
be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course
of the employment of such person by the insured.
(ii) damage to property other than property belonging to the
insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured.
Provided always that the Company shall not be liable in
respect of death, injury or damage caused or arising, beyond the
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:14:16 pm )

C.M.A.No.1874 of 2026
limits of any carriageway or thoroughfare in connection with the
bringing of the load to the vehicle for loading thereon or the taking
away of the load from the vehicle after unloading therefrom.”
12. In a Two-wheeler Bundled Policy, Liability to third parties is
covered again under Section II and the Provision was as follows:
“SECTION II - LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES
1.Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule
hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an
accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle
against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay
in respect of:-
(i)death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants
carried in the insured vehicle (provided such occupants are not
carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to
meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not
be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course
of the employment of such person by the insured.”
13. The salient feature in a Two-wheeler Bundled Policy is that, in
cases of death or bodily injury to any persons including occupants
travelling in the insured vehicle, compensation for their injuries or death
would be borne by the insurance companies, subject to the limits of
liability and in accordance with the policy terms prevailing at the time of
the accident. This distinction has to be kept in mind while deciding
whether, under a particular policy, the Insurance Company would be
liable to pay compensation.”
8. In the present case, the policy issued by the insurance company has
been marked as Ex.B.1, which has been named as ‘Bundled - Two Wheeler Policy’
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:14:16 pm )

C.M.A.No.1874 of 2026
and the very same ‘Section II – Liabibility to Third Parties’ has been incorporated
in the said policy. The Third Party Liability Coverage is for a period of 5 years and
the premium has also been paid for that particular period. Further the accident had
taken place within the Third Party Coverage period, hence the insurance company is
liable to pay the compensation. As we have elaborately discussed regarding the
scope of Section II – Liability of Third parties in the ‘Two-Wheeler Bundled Policy’
in the earlier judgment made in C.M.A.No.3882 of 2026 dated 25.03.2026 , wherein
it has been held that a Two-wheeler Bundled Policy also covers, payment of
compensation to the occupants in the two-wheeler, including the pillion rider.
Therefore, the insurance company cannot escape their liability by contending that
the Two-wheeler Bundled Policy does not cover the pillion rider.
9. In view of the above discussions and the judgment rendered by us in
the earlier proceedings in C.M.A.No.3882 of 2026 dated 25.03.2026 , the question
raised therein also squarely applicable to the present case, hence we are of the view
that the appeal does not have any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. The
direction given by the Tribunal that the appellant/ insurance company should pay
and recover it from the tortfeasor is hereby set aside.
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:14:16 pm )

C.M.A.No.1874 of 2026
10. As far as the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is
concerned, there is no challenge made and no arguments were advanced, hence we
are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation granted by the
Tribunal.
11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The Award
and Decree dated 21.07.2025, passed in M.C.O.P.No.947 of 2021, by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, (V Additional District Court), at Coimbatore that the
insurance company should pay and recover it from the tortfeasor is hereby set aside.
The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount as awarded by
the Tribunal along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to
the credit of M.C.O.P.No.947 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, (V Additional District Court), at Coimbatore. On such deposit, the
claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount as awarded by the Tribunal
along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn, as per the
apportionment fixed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall disburse the award amount
by crediting in to the Savings Bank Account of the claimants. There shall be no
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:14:16 pm )

C.M.A.No.1874 of 2026
order as to costs in the present appeal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
(C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.) (K.RAJASEKAR, J.)
23-06-2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
stn
To
1. The V Additional District Judge,
Motor Accident Tribunal, Coimbatore.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court of Madras.
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:14:16 pm )

C.M.A.No.1874 of 2026
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
stn
C.M.A. No.1874 of 2026
and C.M.P. No.14999 of 2026
23.06.2026
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:14:16 pm )