Truck-Hit Cyclist’s Claim: Bombay HC Upholds Insurer’s Liability After It Failed To Show The Cover Note Was For Another Vehicle

The claimant was injured when a truck bearing registration No. MCY-3564 struck his bicycle on 9 June 1997.

He sought compensation, and the owner did not contest the claim.

The insurer disputed coverage, arguing that cover note No. 719579 related to a different vehicle, MH-03-D-9897.

The claimant relied on Wadala Police Station records identifying truck MCY-3564 and cover note No. 719579; the insurer relied on records concerning vehicle MH-03-D-9897 and its owner.

The Tribunal held the insurer responsible.

The insurer appealed, contending that the Tribunal had wrongly assessed the evidence.

The judgment cites no statute or precedent.

It applies the evidentiary principle that an insurer disputing coverage must establish that the policy or cover note in question did not cover the offending vehicle.

The claimant’s limited access to insurance records, and the insurer’s possession of the relevant policy documents, were material to the Court’s assessment of the evidence.

The police record linked truck MCY-3564 with cover note No. 719579, whereas the insurer’s documents related to vehicle MH-03-D-9897 and referred to a different policy number, 916518.

Although RTO records identified another owner for MCY-3564, the Court considered that the vehicle might have changed hands.

The insurer did not establish that its policy documents for MH-03-D-9897 corresponded to cover note No. 719579, and therefore failed to prove that the offending truck was outside its coverage.

The Court found no error in the Tribunal’s assessment.

It dismissed the appeal and disposed of any pending applications.