Failure to challenge an exhibited insurance policy during cross-examination precludes subsequent claims of it being fraudulent.

Two cross-appeals were filed against the award dated 30.03.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jashpur in Claim Case No. 60/2018.

The Insurance Company sought exoneration, alleging the insurance policy (Ex. A-6) was fake, and claimed their right to lead evidence was prematurely closed by the Tribunal.

The claimants sought enhancement of the compensation originally awarded at ₹9,37,200/-, arguing the calculation for income and consortium was inadequate.

The Tribunal had closed the insurer’s evidence on 25.03.2019 after granting three opportunities.

1. Whether the Insurance Company was entitled to further opportunity to lead evidence regarding the allegedly fake insurance policy.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement based on minimum wages and proper calculation of consortium.

The Court applied the principles of motor accident compensation as established in Sarla Verma v. DTC and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi regarding the calculation of future prospects (40%), deduction for personal expenses (1/2 for a bachelor), and standardized sums for non-pecuniary heads like loss of estate, funeral expenses, and parental consortium (₹40,000 + 10% inflation adjustment, interpreted as ₹44,000 per claimant).

It further applied the principle that an insurer must strictly prove a "fake policy" defense if the policy is already exhibited without objection.

Regarding the insurer's appeal, the Court noted that the policy was marked as Ex. A-6 without objection and the insurer failed to cross-examine the claimants' witnesses on this point.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision to close the insurer’s evidence, noting they failed to produce their witness despite three opportunities on 11.02.2019, 18.03.2019, and 25.03.2019.

Regarding enhancement, the Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income (₹6,000) was below minimum wage standards and re-fixed it at ₹7,800.

The Court applied a 40% addition for future prospects and a multiplier of 18.

Crucially, the Court added ₹88,000 for consortium (₹44,000 x 2) which was previously nil, but struck down the "penal interest" awarded by the Tribunal, maintaining a standard interest of 6% per annum.

The additional amount of ₹3,60,160/- is to carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim application, to be deposited by the respondent within 45 days.