An insurer may amend its defence and adduce evidence to prove absence of third-party coverage.

The claimant, a pillion rider, alleged that he was injured when the motorcycle on which he was travelling fell after its rider lost control; he sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal awarded him ₹4,19,665 with interest at 6% per annum and directed the insurer to pay.

The insurer appealed, asserting that the policy was a standalone own-damage policy that did not cover third-party risk, and sought leave to amend its written statement and produce the policy as additional evidence.

The claimant separately appealed seeking enhanced compensation.

Whether the insurer should be permitted to amend its written statement and produce additional evidence, requiring remand of the claim petition for fresh consideration.

Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of compensation.

The Court considered Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which the parties brought their appeals.

It also considered Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, concerning additional evidence in appeal, and Order VI Rule 17 CPC, concerning amendment of pleadings.

The Court’s stated basis was that where the policy produced on appeal prima facie indicated no third-party coverage, the insurer should be given an opportunity to establish its coverage defence; it observed that an insurer cannot be directed to pay compensation without policy coverage.

The policy produced with the insurer’s applications was headed “Motorcycle/Scooter Standalone Own Damage Policy” and therefore prima facie did not cover third-party risk.

Although the insurer had failed to produce it before the Tribunal and had not raised the specific defence there, the Court treated that failure as a lapse and, considering the policy and the insurer’s contention, allowed the insurer an opportunity to amend its pleading and adduce evidence.

It consequently remanded the matter for fresh consideration, leaving the policy-coverage question for the Tribunal.

Because of the remand, the claimant’s enhancement appeal was not determined on its merits.

Both sides were permitted to adduce evidence and present their respective cases; the parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12 November 2026, and the amount in deposit was to be transferred to it.

The claimant’s appeal seeking enhancement was disposed of without a decision on the merits.