SC Lets Insurer Recover 50% Compensation from Truck Owner in Accidental Death Case

21-year-old Hem Singh Mehta, who was a security guard earning Rs. 4,000 a month, was fatally injured in a road accident on 21 June 2006. Mehta had been waiting for a bus at Tanda Chowk in Haldwani, Uttarakhand, when a truck hit him. He succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment.

Following the accident, Mehta’s family approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haldwani, which in September 2007 awarded Rs. 3,87,000 with 7% interest as compensation, holding the insurance company liable. The Tribunal based its finding on the insurance policy produced by the truck owner, which appeared to cover the accident date.

The Insurance Company, however, later discovered that the policy had been tampered with. According to records from its issuing office in Rohtak, the actual policy was valid only from 28 June 2006 to 27 June 2007, whereas the fatal accident had occurred a week earlier, on 21 June 2006. Alleging fraud by the vehicle owner, the insurer moved a review petition before the Tribunal. But the Tribunal dismissed it, citing lack of power to review its own award.

On appeal, the Uttarakhand High Court in April 2019 rejected both the insurer’s challenge and the claimants’ demand for enhanced compensation. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of Mehta’s annual income at Rs. 36,000, dependency at Rs. 24,000, and multiplier of 15, terming the award just and appropriate.

Unhappy with this, the insurer escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, reiterating that it could not be made liable as the insurance coverage did not exist on the date of accident. The claimants, meanwhile, did not pursue their cross-appeal any further.

Delivering its verdict on 26 September 2025, a bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria noted that the insurer had failed to raise the issue during the original proceedings. Court also highlighted that the dismissal of the review petition in 2007 had not been challenged before the High Court, and that allegations of fraud remained unproven.

“Though the allegation of fraud is levelled, it could not be proved by the insurer. Furthermore, the order passed in the review application was not challenged before the High Court for reasons best known to it,” the bench observed.

At the same time, court acknowledged that subsequent verification showed the policy did not actually cover the accident date.

Striking a balance, the apex court allowed the insurer to recover 50% of the compensation amount from the vehicle’s owner and driver.

Court directed that any remaining compensation be deposited by the insurer before the Tribunal within six weeks. With this partial modification, the appeal was dismissed.