Insurer Company Can't Deny Liability Solely On Basis Of Incorrect Policy Number Furnished By Claimants: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has recently held that the liability of an insurance company cannot be negated solely on the ground that the claimants have furnished an incorrect policy number, particularly when the insurer fails to discharge its duty to produce the correct policy in support of its case.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, stated, “Merely providing a wrong policy number by the claimants, liability of the insurance company cannot be ruled out because the claimants are not supposed to know the exact policy number and they have gathered the same from somewhere and produced it before the learned Tribunal.”

The above ruling was made in a Miscellaneous Appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, wherein the insurance company challenged the compensation award of ₹20,49,000 granted by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur, in a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) Case to the claimants involved in the case.

As per the factual matrix of the case, the claimant had filed the claim case for grant of compensation on account of the death of her husband and father, who died in motor vehicle accident for which a case registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC against the driver of alleged vehicle. It was the case of the claimant that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the accident occurred resulting into the death of the two deceased men, who died leaving behind the claimants. Notably, one of the deceased was the only earning member of the family.

It was argued by the appellant insurance company that the correct policy was not produced before Tribunal and in spite of that, the Tribunal awarded the sum which was not in accordance of law. It was further submitted that in view of the wrong policy, liability cannot be fastened upon the appellant and the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the amount. It was also contended that the charge sheet was not submitted under relevant sections and in view of that, negligence was also not proved and in view of that, the accident itself was in dispute. Lastly, it was argued that the postmortem was not done and yet the Tribunal awarded the sum.

The High Court, however, held, “Merely because the relevant sections are not there, that does not mean that the accident has not taken place. The oral evidences of the witnesses are constant on the point of accident and earning of the deceased. The ground taken by the insurance company herein in this appeal is required to prove before the learned Court, however, the appellant-insurance company has failed to prove the same and in view of that, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the judgment and award.”

“Merely because the relevant sections are not there, that does not mean that the accident has not taken place. The oral evidences of the witnesses are constant on the point of accident and earning of the deceased. The ground taken by the insurance company herein in this appeal is required to prove before the learned Court, however, the appellant-insurance company has failed to prove the same and in view of that, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the judgment and award,” the Court Court concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's award and disposed of the appeal.

Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Lilmuni Madaiyan @ Lilmuni Madyan

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 32

Click Here To Read Judgment