Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed an insurer's appeals against motor accident compensation awards. The insurer failed to prove its defence that the insured tractor was not involved, the police final report having named that vehicle; the policy schedule showed the period of insurance and commencement of risk from the accident date, so the vehicle was insured; and a bare allegation that the policy was obtained by fraud, unsupported by evidence, could not defeat liability.
Issues
- Whether the insurer proved that the insured vehicle was not the vehicle involved in the accident.
- Whether the insurance policy covered an accident that occurred on the day the policy was issued but at an hour earlier than the recorded time of issue.
- Whether the insurer could avoid liability on a bare allegation that the insurance was obtained by fraud.
Provisions considered
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The police final report identified the insured tractor as the vehicle involved; the Court held that the onus then lay on the insurer, driver or owner to disprove it, for instance by examining the Investigating Officer, which was not done. (¶ 9)
Held
- An insurer seeking to avoid liability must establish its defence and the breach on the part of the owner, the burden being on it (following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh). Where witnesses identified the insured vehicle, the insurer's own witness was unsure which of two vehicles with consecutive registration numbers was involved, no contrary suggestion was put to the claimants' witnesses in cross-examination, and the final report under Section 173 CrPC named the insured vehicle, the insurer had not discharged that burden. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
- The Certificate of Insurance cum Policy Schedule recorded the period of insurance and the date of commencement of risk as 11.04.2017, the date of the accident; on these facts the vehicle was insured when the accident occurred. The Court reiterated the view in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sobina Iakai that a policy takes effect from the time and date specifically incorporated in it and not from an earlier point. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Fraud vitiates everything, but merely alleging fraud does not prove it: the party alleging fraud must plead full particulars and prove it by evidence, and the onus lies on that party (relying on Bishnudeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra). (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- The insurer, which did not prove that the premium was not received before the accident and only alleged that the insurance was fraudulently obtained, failed to discharge its onus and could not escape liability under the policy. (¶¶ 13, 16)
Result
Appeals dismissed with no order as to costs; the insurer to deposit the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, if not already done, by 15.01.2025, for immediate distribution to the claimants.