Insurer remains liable where the plea of false vehicle implantation is unsubstantiated by evidence.

The Appellant/Insurance Company filed two appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the common award dated 02/11/2019 passed by the Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Cases No. H-06/2017 and H-07/2017

The Tribunal had awarded compensation amounts of ₹4,83,600 and ₹5,42,500 respectively to the claimants, fastening the liability for payment on the appellant

The appellant contended that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated and was not involved in the subject accident

Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company despite the appellant’s plea that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident

The Court adjudicated the appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides the statutory right to appeal against a Claims Tribunal award

The court applied the fundamental principle of the law of evidence regarding the burden of proof: a party who asserts a specific fact—such as the false implication of a vehicle in an insurance claim—must lead evidence to substantiate that assertion to discharge their burden

The High Court examined the record and noted that although the Insurance Company had explicitly raised a plea in paragraph 13 of their written statement alleging that the offending vehicle was falsely implanted, they failed to lead any evidence to prove this claim

The Court reasoned that a mere plea in a written statement, without supporting evidence brought before the Tribunal, is insufficient to rebut the findings of the lower court

Consequently, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court found no illegality or error in the Tribunal's decision to hold the insurer liable for the awarded compensation

The impugned awards were upheld, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs