The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw the deposited amounts in MVOP No. 350 of 2017 on the file of the MACT-Cum-The Judge, Family Court-cum-lll Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar. cTt No. 91 O Cross objections filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of the C.P.C., aggrieve by the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge-cum-J udge, Family Court at Mahabub Nagar in O.P.No.350 of 2017, dt 4.10.2023. Between

1. Thakur Radha Bhai, w/o Late Thakur Bheem Singh, Aged 32 years, Occ. House y'Vife R/o H.No.1-21, Ganjipalli Village of Doma Manddt Ranga Reddy D_istricl Presently residing At H.No.2-83, Bandameedipally Village oI Mahab,rbnagar Mandal and District.

2. Thakur Sai Ram, S/o Late Thakur Bheem Singh Aged about 16 years, minor, 3. Thakur Sai Sradha, D/o Late Thakur Bheem Singh Aged about 10 years,rlinor

4. Thakur Ambika, D/o Late Thakur Bheem Singh, Aged .5 years Minor, 5. Thakur keshar Bai, Wio. Late Ummar Singh Aged. Z9 years, The Respondent No!- 2 to 4 are being minors under guardianship Of their natural Mother Smt Thakur Radha Bhai, the Respond-ent No.1. All are R/o H.No.1-21, Ganjipatti Village of Doma Mandal Ranga Reddy D.istricl. Presently residing At H No.2-83, Bandameedipally Mli-age of Mahabubnagar Mandal and District. Petitioners/Respondent No. 1 to 3/Claimants 1-3 AND 1 . United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, Represented by its Divisional Manager, T. p. Hub, 2nd floor, Possnet Bhavan. Church Building, Thilak Roadl AUids, Hyderabad. Respon'dent / AppellanUR-3

2. Moahrnmed Azhar, S/o Mohd. Ahmed, Aqed maior. Occ. Driver of Swarai Mazda Mini Bus bearing No. Ap-29U-7933, R/o i.t.t,to. 1B-7 -198tBt72tC |,Iiurad ' Mahal, Talabkatta, Chairminar Hyderabad

3. premi,:r Travels lndia Limite4, Represented by Syed Sarosh S/o Not known, lge9 19jo199c Qw-ne1o!_Syva1!i Mazda mini Bus bearing No. Ap-29U - 7933, FVo. H.No.13-6-434/4/11 MaruthiNagar, Saroor Nag-ar, R.R. District. RespondentS/R.6 & 7/Respondent Nos.1 & 2 cRoss o BJECTION No. 95 0F 2024: Cross objections filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of the C.p.C., aggrieve by the Award of the chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District JudtJe-cum-J udge, Family Court at Mahabub Nagar in O.p.No.349 of 20'17, dt.4.10.2023. Between:

1. T. Bhavani, Wo Late Thakur Anil Singh. , Aged 23 years, Occ. Housd hold.are R/o H.No.22-4, J.P. Colony, Ramachandrapur village, Tellapur Mandal, Medak District Presently residing at H.No. 2-83, Badameedipally viltage of Mahabubnagar Mandal and District

2. T. Nathik Singh, S/o Late Thal<ur Anil Singh Aged about 5 years, minor, 3. T. Komal, D/o.Late Thankur Anil singh Aged about 1 ll2years,,minor Petitionr Nos. 2 and 3 are being minors under guardianship of their natural Mother, the Petitioner No.1 All are R/o H.No.2 2-4, J.P. Colony, Ramachandrapur village, Tellapur Mandal, Medak District Presently residing at H.No. 2-83, Badameedipally village of Mahabubnagar Mandal and District. Petitioners/ Respondent No.1 to 3/Claimants 1-3 AND

1. United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, Represented by its Divisional Manager, T.P. Hub, 2nd floor,Possnet Bhavan Church Building, Thilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad RESPON DENT/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NO.3

2. Moahmmed Azhar, S/o Mohd. Ahmed, Aged major, Occ. Dt'iver of Swaraj Mazda Mini Bus bearing No. AP-29U-7933, Rio H.No. 18-71198/Bl72lO Murad Mahal, Talabkatta, Chairminar Hyderabad

3. Premier Travels lndia Limited, Represented by Syed Sarosll S/o Not known, Aged major, Occ. Owner of Swalaj Mqzda mini Bus bearing. No.AP-29-U 7935, R/o. H.No. 13-6-4341N1 1 MaruthiNagar, $aroor Nagar, R.R. District. '

4. T. Shobha Wo T. Bhagwathi Prasad Singh, aged 67 yrs,, O99. Husewife, R/o H.No.22-4, Ramch-andrapur Village of Tellapur Mandal, Medak District. (Presently Sanga Reddy Dist.) (R.4 is not necessary Party) Respondents/R. 4 & S/Respondent Nos.2 to 4 Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SRI BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT IN TTIE ]IIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD. THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. Nos.604 and of 2024 Cross Ob AND Nos.91 and af 2O24. Date of Order : 28 -ll-2025 Between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant/ Respondent No.3 And

1. T.Bha.zani, W/o.Late'lhakur Anil Singh and forrr others. Respondents. COMM.ON JUDGMENT H'-'ard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur, learned counsel for clairnanr:s/respondents at length

2. M.A.L-.M.A.No.604 of 2024 is filed by the Appellant-United India Irrsurance Company Limited being aggrieved by the Award and de<:ree dated 04.10.2023 passed in M.V.O.P.No.349 of 2Al7 2 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal --cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-Ill Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar in partly allowing the claim granting compensation of Rs.14,75,200/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5 p.a. from the date of petition till date of realization, out of the claim of Rs.25,00,000/-

3. M.A.C.M.A.No.608 of 2024 is also filed by the Appellant- United India Insurance Company Limited being aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 04.10.2023 passed in M.V.O.P.No.350 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Triburral -cum- Judge, Family Court-cum-Ill Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short 'the Tribunal') in partly allowing the claim granting compensation of Rs.l I ,75,0001- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5 p.a. from the date of petition tifl date of realization, out of the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. Cross Objections No.9l of 2024 is filed against M.A.C.M.A.No.608 of 2024 while Cross Objections Nos.95 of 2024 is filed against M.A.C.M.A.No.604 of 2024 by the cilaimants seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal. 3

5. Since, the crime vehicle involved in the accident i.e. Swaraj Mazda NIini bus bearing No.AP-29U-7933 (for short 'the crime vehicle') on 01.05.2017 and travelers/passengers to the incidents as well ar; the owner of the crime vehicle is one and the sarne, these Appeals and Cross Objections are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

6. The facts leading to filing of M.V.O.P.No.349 of 2017 and M.V.O.t'.No.350 of 2017 are that on 01.05.2017, when the decease<l Thakur Anil Singh and his cousin deceased Thakur Bheem Singh were proceeding towards Thellapur village from Gandipe,t on motor cycle bearing No.TS-l5EC-7107 and reached near Coca-Cola Company, outskirts of Khanapur village, the crime vehicle said to have been driven by the driver, who is respondent No.1 in the said OPs, at high speed in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction on extremely right side of the road, dashed against the motor cycle resulting the death of the deceased.

7. Birsing on the report, a case in Crime No.3l9l20l7 was registered under Section 304-4 IPC by Narsingi Police against the driver of the crime vehicle and investigated into. 4

8. It was contended in MACM A 604 of 2024 that at the time of death of the deceased Thakur Anil Singh, was hale and healthy, aged about 20 years and said to have been working as driver to vehicle bearing No.AP-28DU-9186, thereby used to earn Rs.12,500/- p.m. besides Rs.l00/- towards batta eveq day and used to contribute to the family. On account of the sudden death of Thakur Anil Singh, his family was under deep depressign and as such, parents of the deceased, wife and two minor children filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- against respondents therein jointly and severally.

9. In respect of M.A.C.M.A.No.608 of 2024, the same was filed by the claimants of deceased Thakur Bheem Singh claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- contending that at the time of death, the said deceased was hale and healthy, aged 42 y,ears and used to work as skilled mason earning Rs.500/- per day and said to have contributed to the f-amily. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased Thakur Bheem Singh, his family suffered ment4l.agony and monitory loss. As such, wife, minor children and father of the ,,: ;t 5 deceasecl Thakur Bheem Singh filed the O.P.No.350 of 2OI7 claiming; compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

10. Thr: respondent Nos.l and 2 in the OP, who are driver and owner 'rf crime vehicle, remained ex parte-. I{owever, the Insuran<:e Company filed counter denying allegations stating that the crin.e vehicle, which is involved in the accident, was not at all insured with their Company and that the Policy of [nsurance produced by claimants is fake. It was contended that as per the Registration Certificate, the vehicle said to have been involved in the accident was a Contract Carriage whereas in the policy, it was , mentiorred that it is a private car and therefore contended that the policy rvas created for the purpose of a false claim. I 1. [t was further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle has no effective driving license as on the date of accident, for which the concerned R.T.A. said to have issued VCR on

02.05.2,017, but by suppressing the material facts, the claim petitions have been filed. [t is also contended that there was absolutely no liability on the part of the lnsurance company warranting to pay compensation. 6

12. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues in both the Claim Petitions "1. Wether the accident occurred on 01.05.2017 ut 22:40 hours, near Coca Cola Company, outskirts of Khanapur Gandipet village, Cybderabad District, due lo the rash and negligent driving of driver Sworaj Mazda Mini Bus beat'ing No.AP-29U-7933? 2) Whether the petitioners are entilled to clatm compensation? If so, to what amount, .from which of the respondent? 3) To what relief ? " In M.V.O.P.No.349 of 2017 the following issue was also framed "Whetfer the respondent No.4 ,s entitled to cldim eofrpensation? If so, to what amoun4 from which of the respondent? "

13. During trial, on behalf of the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.349 of 2017 (MACMA No.604 of 2024), P.Ws.l to 3 were examined besides marking Exs.Al to A-9. On behalf of lnsurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-l to B-4 were marked. In M.V.O.P.No.349 of 2017 (MACMA No.604 of 2024), on behalf of the claimants, wife of deceased Thakur Bheem Singh was 1 examined as P.W.l, Circumstantial witness T.Bhavani and alleged eye-witrress Thakur Venkat Singh were examined besides marking Exs.A-l to A-7. On behalf of lnsurance Company, R.W.l was examine:d and Exs.B-l to B-4 were marked.

14. Tho learned Tribunal while dealing with Issue Nos.l and 2 recorderl that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

15. The learned Tribunal held that when the driver of the crime vehicle proceeded in a public way, he is expected to drive the vehicle carefully and cautiously with utmost care to avoid unforeseen circumstances, but the driver of the crime vehicle involved in the accident drove the same rashly and negligently, which resulted in the death of two persons, and that the death was occurre,d instantaneously on account of injuries sustained by them in the road accident, which was purely on account of rash and neglige,nt driving of the crime vehicle.

16. The learned Tribunal further held that respondent No.2 being the or.r'ner of the crime vehicle entrusted the vehicle to a person 8 who is disqualified to drive it, which is evident from Ex.A-5, Accident Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, wherein while mentioning the ownership particulars of the vehicle'involved in the accident, it was mentioned as driver was not having valid Driving License and issuance of VCR was also referred. Therefore, the learned Tribunal categorically held that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the driver, who did not possess effective and valid driving license and as he was unable to control the vehicle, it resulted in the death of two persons.

17. R.W.l, who was examined on behalf of the Ipsurance Company disputed the liability stating that the policy of insurance was not issued by the appellant lnsurance Company and the claimants produced the fake policy for the purpose of claim, and that the policy produced by the claimants is in respect of a private car liability only whereas the vehicle involved in the accident was Swaraj Mazda,a passenger carrying heavy vehicle.

18. R.W.1 further deposed that he searched for the polic/ bearing No.051496123112116100004195, but in vain, and as per the statement of account of their Company, no policy wa$ issued 9 between 01.10.2016 to 31.10.2017 and therefore, Ex.A-9 in MVOP No. 349 of 2A17, a copy of insurance establishes that owner and driver of the crime vehicle plied the vehicle without obtaining insurance policy by violating the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.

19. R.W.l further relied upon Exs.B-l and B-2 issued in the name of'respondent No.2 owner of the crime vehicle on 08.05.2018 and also copy of statement of Bank account under Ex.B-3 as well as Xerox copy of vehicle check report, which was subject to objecticn, as it is a Xerox copy.

20. Wrile addressing the issue with respect to appointment of an Investig;ator, the learned Tribunal recorded that the appellant R.W.l Ceposed that it is not a mandatory one. With respect to the averment that the Insurance Company did not take any action against the respondent No.2 for the alleged creation of fake insurance policy for the crime vehicle except issuing notice under Ex.B- l, the testimony of R.W.l discloses that there was no practic: of lodging report before the police by the Insurance Company regarding alleged fake insurance policy, and in the 10 instant, the Insurance Company did not lodge any report before the police against respondent No.2 for creating of fake policy.

21. Considering the various averments, the learned Tribunal held that the Insurance Company did not take any steps to prove that the insurance policy was fraudulent. It emphasi2ed that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting the existence of certain facts by virtue of Section 101, 102 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, admitting the contentions of the lnsurance Company with respect to the fake document, the learned Tribunal held that the law permits the Insurance Company to pay amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in the event of there being any defect in the policy or liability having been improperly foisted on the Insurance Company.

22. With respect to the contentions urged by the Insurance Company that it had not issued Ex.A-9 policy of insurance and it is a fake and that the Insurance Company did not receive any premium for the vehicle and the documents needs verification, the learned Tribunal held that the Court was not equipped with \t necessar/ paraphernalia to do such verification and the veraciry of the doctrment had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the lnvestigrrting Agencl'when a report is given regarding fake policy

23. Tht: learned Tribunal fumher held that the burden of proof lies oo respondent No.1 driver of crime vehicle to establish that he had effectivt: and valid driving license to drive the nature of vehicle involverl in the accident, but he remained ex parte, and therefore, it could be considered that the crime vehicle was driven by respondent No.l, who did not possess effective driving license on the datt: of accident, resulting in the instantaneous death of two deceased. ?4. Tf.e learned Tribunal gave a categorical finding that it was not established that Ex.A-9 policy of insurance is a fake document; howevt:r, as the respondent No.l had no valid and effective driving license, the respondent No.3 Insurance Company cannot be held liable. [t was further held that however, by vinue of established principles of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant Insurance Compe,ny was directed to pay the compensation first and recover the sane from the driver and owner of the crime vehicle. L2

25. The learned Tribunal taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m., including deduction of % towards personal and living expenses and adding future prospects at 40oh, came to conclusion that an amount of Rs.14,75,200N' and Rs.11,75,000/-would be reasonable amount given to the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.349 of 2017 and M.V.O.P.No.350 of 2017 respectively and partly allowed the claims under different Heads.

26. Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the Insurance Company had never issued any policy in favour of the crime vehicle and that the Xerox copy produced under Ex.A-9, is absolutely a fake document created for the purpose of making false claim against the Irtsurance Company.

27. Placing reliance on Ex.A-9, the Certificate of [nsurance, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the policy number shown is 051496123116100004195. According to the claimapts, this number corresponds to the Tarnaka, Secunderabad office. However, the appellant company contends that the policy issued by Tarnaka branch should have started with 050202, but the policy 13 produced by claimants purportedly issued by the Tarnaka branch, begins ',rrith 051496. It was further contended that the round seal affixed on the top of the document bears the name "Tilak Road" instead of "Tarnaka," raising doubts about its authenticity

28. It is further contended that the disputed policy mentions number as 051496/231121161000041,95 and the name of the insurer reflecting the name as 'Syed Sarosh' is absolutely a fake one since the vehicle was registered in the name of Premier Travels India Limited and the ownership of vehicle reflects in the name of Company only. Further, on the top of policy, the liability was issued in favour of private car and in the making column, it is mentioned as Swaraj Mazda referring the vehicle number as AP-29'J-7933, which is also different. Therefore, he contends that mere producing a fake policy i.e. Xerox of fake document does not establish any liability on the Insurance Company

29. Learned counsel fbr the appellant further relies upon the chief- examination of R.W.l who categorically deposed that respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle never obtained or renewed any policy from the Company to the crirne vehicle commencing from 14

23.12.2016 to

22.12.2017 much less policy No.051496123112116100004195 and that on the face of docurnent it appears to be a fake document prepared for the purpose of filing the case.

30. Leamed counsel for the appellant further relied upon the deposition of R.W.1, who deposed that the statement of account of the Company clarifies that no policy was issued between

01.10.2016 to 31.10.2017 and Ex.A-9 is a result of an afterthought to mislead the Court for getting compensation by way of fraud. 3 l. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the cross- examination of R.W. I wherein it was deposed that respondent No.3/Insurance Company having knowledge that Ex.A-9 is a fake policy and there is no practice of lodging complaint by the Insurance Company with respect to fake insurance policy.

32. Learned counsel for the appellant fuither contended that the vehicle involved in the accident is a 23 seater vehicle, for which a specified payment of premium is required, whereas the false.policy produced before the Tribunal do not match with each other. On the ,? ''k 15 other hand, no prernium was paid towards alleged accident vehicle creating a relationship of insured and insurer or creating privity of contract, thus contends that the insurance policy produced by the claiman;s is a fake policy and the appellant Insurance Company is absolute ly stranger to the case as the claim made is a fraudulent

33. Lelrned counsel for the appellant further contended that discreprncies as evident on the face of the document is that the policy r;hould have been issued in the name of Premier Travels India L. mited, but not in the name of Syed Sarosh. Therefore, there cannot be any liability upon the Insurance Company and that it is not mardatory to lodge any complaint, and if such a thing to be undertaken, it would become a regular practice of lodging complaint.

34. Lr:arned counsel for the appellant submits that wherever there is a genuine policy and having liability, the Company is always ready tr discharge its obligation towards claimants. 16

35. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the model document issued by United Insurance Company Limited branch office at Tarnaka, Secunderabad under Private Car Liability policy referring to Code Number as 'O5O2O2' and the model policy number towards private liability should be '0514033107P1 18063469' whereas under Ex.A-9, the document produced by the claimants, the number of Private Car Liability Policy is entirely different.

36. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Madras passed in M/s.Baiai Atlianz G.eneral Insurance Company Limited Vs. Devan and othersl wherein it was held that since the Insurance Company had not taken any steps to prosecute the persons, who are responsible for creation of the fake policy, the Insurance Company will have to pay the claimant and recover the money from the insured. [t was further held that the Insurance Companies are not expected to do charity. Insurance Company can be made liable only when there is a valid coptract of , order dated 03.02 .z}o}passed in G.M.A.No.537 of 2021and cMP No.34l0 of2021 ,l: 17 insurance as the very liability of [nsurance Company is dependent on the liability to indemnif, the owner of the vehicle, and unless there is a valid contract of insurance, the lnsurance Company cannot be made liable under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the said judgment, it was further held that policy is a fake policy, the Tribunal ought not to have made the lnsurance Company liable, solely on the ground that the insurance company had not taken action against the persons, who had created the fake policy. tt is also opln to the Insurance Company to avoid liability before the Tribune.l and that the inaction on the part of the Insurance Comparry to bring to book the culprits who had created the policy, cannot be a ground to fix the liability on the Insurance Company. R.elying upon the above judgment, the High Court of Madras in the matter of Sivakami and others Vs. M.Rajavel and others2 held that liabilitl, is on the owner of the vehicle and not on the Insurance Company.

37. Lt:arned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in IFFCO TOKIO General ' Order dfied23.07.2024 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.l7j I of 2024 18 Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Badavath Balkishan and others3 wherein it was held that the evidence tendered in support of a civil liability must be authentic, reliable and of unimpaired integrity, and that no privity of contract has been established between the owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant-Insurance Company for the relevant period.

38. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant contended the orders passed by the learned Tribunal needs to be set aside.

39. On the other hand, Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal, relying upon the depositions made before it, had rightly come to conclusion that though there is an averment of fake policy, but as per the settled proposition of law, the [nsurance Company has to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle since clair4ants are innocent and poor labourers.

40. Learned counsel for the claimants relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Notional Insurance Company'Limited ' lzozs'1Law Suit (TS ) 28 19 Vs. Mayo Devi and othersa wherein the Apex Court considering the issur: of fraud held that Insurance Company has not discharged its onus to prove the alleged fraud and the insurance company's liability under the issued insurance certificate/policy to cover the incident, cannot be escaped by alleging fraud.

41. Learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contended that the claimants being the third parties, are only having xerox copy, which is disputed by the [nsurance Company and the burden of proof lies on the [nsurance Company to establish that a fraud or fake document is produced in order to make a fraudulent clairn.

42. I have given my eamest consideration to the contentions raised try the parties, and thoroughly perused the record.

43. Prima facie the learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the insurance policy produced by the claimants are fake and fraudulent. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the policy documont, which is Xerox copy produced by the claimants, suffers from various discrepancies including that of Branch name, Branch 4 2025 ACr 406 20 code, Branch Sea[ and name of insurer etc. The learned Tribunal ought to have given due weight to the discrepancies mentioned

44. Apart from this, the fake policy produced is a Xerox copy. Nothing prevented the claimants to approach the originul o*n". o, the Insurance Company to produce the original policy in order to prove its genuineness. When an element of fraud or fraudulent claim is made, it is the duty of the claimants to establish/prove its genuineness in order to claim compensation legally. tn the absence of privity of contract, no liability can be based on the Insurance Company. Therefore, the contention of pay and recover does not arise and the burden of proof of cannot be shifted on to the Insurance Company to prove the fake and fraudulent document.

45. As per the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants in Maya Devi (supra), the issue involved is with respect to the date and timing from when the concerned vehicle would be deemed to be covered by the policy. The said judgment also deals with the allegations of fraud and cites judgment ,1 . :.tt_:i_, -- : 2t S.P.Chenlyalvaroya Naidu Vs. Jagannaths and Lazarus Estates Ltd. Vs. Beassley6, rvherein it was hetd that no judgment of a court, no ,rrder of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fiaud. F-raud unravels everything. The judgments relied upc,n by the learned counsel for the claimants rather supports the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant

46. On r.he other hand, the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in M/s.Bajoj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) covers the issue that the Insurance Companies are not expected to do chari':y. Having found that the policy is a fake policy, the learned 'fribunal ought not to have made the appellant Insurance Cornpany liable solely on the ground that the appellant Company has not nken any action against the persons who had created the fake policy, and that liability cannot be fixed on the Insurance Company to establish the fraud. 5 (1994) I S('c I 6 (1956) I QIr 701 22

47. On the other hand, this Court considered the similar issue in IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) took a view that the evidence tendered in support of a civility liability must be authentic, reliable and of unimpaired integrity, and that a photocopy of a document, inconsistent with the issuing 4uthority's official records and lacking all customary authentication marks, cannot be permitted to found legal liability.

48. In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the appellant-lnsurance Company has made out a case to prove that the insurance policy produced by the claimants is absolutely a fraud and fake document, and basing on such a fake dnd ftaudulent document, the leamed Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation to the claimants and fix the liability on the appellant Insurance Company. Therefore, the awards passed by the learned Tribunal are liable to be set aside.

49. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.604 of 2024 and M.A.C.M.A.No.608 of 2024 are allowed and the impugned awards passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.349 of 2017 and I 23 M.V.O.1'}.No.350 of' 2017 are set aside. Consequently, Cross Objecticrns No.9l of 2024 and 95 of 2024 are closed

50. Needless to mention that the claimants are at liberty to claim compensation from the owner of the crime vehicle in accordance with la'ru. The appellants are entitled to withdraw the amount deposite:d pursuant t<l the interim orders of this Court.

51. As a sequel, interim orders, if any granted in the Appeals stands 'acated. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/- M JAWAHAR REDDY STANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court at Mahabub Nagar. (With Records if any)

2. One CC to SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One C;C to SRl. BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two C;D Copies \ \ To, M, ASR/PSL HIGH CC)URT DATED i11811112025 JUDGMI=NT THE S ( c' ? 3 JAlt 2026 * -?'i- 't r{ MACMA.No.604 & 608 ot 2024 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS Nos.91 & 95 OF 2024 ALLOWII{G THE APPEALS & CLOSING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS b p'