Karnataka HC Sets Aside Tata Ace Owner’s Liability, Lets Him Produce Insurance Policy For Tribunal To Decide Who Pays Accident Award

The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 8 March 2016, alleging that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of a Tata Ace owned by the appellant.

The Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹9,52,435 with interest, held the owner liable on the ground that the vehicle was uninsured, and dismissed the claim against the insurer.

The owner, who had been placed ex parte before the Tribunal, appealed and sought to produce the vehicle’s insurance policy as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The insurer disputed whether the policy covered the risk, including because the claimant was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.

The Court considered Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits additional evidence at the appellate stage in appropriate circumstances, and Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, cited as the statutory basis for the application.

It accepted that the owner’s explanation—that he was unaware of the claim petition and consequently did not appear or produce the policy—made out a case for permission to produce the document.

The Court did not decide any substantive rule on the scope of insurance coverage or the insurer’s liability; those questions were left for determination by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal had fixed liability on the owner because no insurance policy was before it.

On appeal, the owner sought to produce a policy said to have been issued before the accident and explained his earlier non-participation.

The Court considered that explanation sufficient to admit the policy, but noted that whether it covered the relevant risk—and whether the insurer was liable—required further inquiry, particularly in light of the insurer’s contention concerning the claimant’s role as driver.

It therefore remitted the liability question for further evidence rather than deciding coverage itself.

The Tribunal’s finding fastening liability on the owner was set aside, and the matter was remanded only for determination of who must pay the award; the parties may adduce further evidence.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 1 December 2026, and the trial record and additional document were to be sent to it.

If the owner succeeds, he must pay interest for the delay period of 1,488 days.