Insurer Told To Pay Rs 5 Lakh To Family Of Man Killed In Jallikattu

The Madras High Court has directed United India Insurance Company Limited to pay Rs 5 lakh to the family of a man who died after being attacked by a bull during a Jallikattu event in Karur district.

The order came on a petition filed by K Mathuram, whose husband was killed during a Jallikattu event held at Ratchandar Thirumalai village in 2025. The event was covered by an insurance policy. Under the policy, Rs 5 lakh was payable in case of death or 100 per cent permanent disability.

After her husband’s death, Mathuram sought payment of the insured amount. The company, however, did not release the claim. She then moved the court, according to a recent report by The Hindu.

Insurer Raised Objections Over FIR Details

The insurance company relied on an investigation report to oppose the claim. The company argued that the First Information Report (FIR) showed him near the bull collection point when the accident happened.

The company also pointed out that the FIR did not mention the name of the owner of the bull that had gored the man. It used these points to resist payment of the sum assured.

The court was not persuaded by this argument.

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the FIR did not state that the deceased had wrongly entered the path through which the bulls were running. Nor did it say that he had gone into an area where he was not supposed to be present.

On the second objection, the court said it would have been better had the police mentioned the name of the bull owner. But the absence of that detail could not be treated as a reason to deny the benefit of the insurance cover.

Court Says Claim Cannot Be Denied On Technical Grounds

The court took the view that the insurance policy had been taken to cover precisely such mishaps during the Jallikattu event. Once the death had taken place in connection with the event, the insurer could not avoid payment by relying on technical objections.

The court, therefore, directed the company to pay Rs 5 lakh to the petitioner.

The order is important because event insurance is often taken for occasions where the possibility of injury is already known. In such events, the idea behind insurance is to ensure that those injured and the families of those who die are not left without financial support.

Jallikattu is not a risk-free event. Once the bulls are let out and a crowd gathers around the arena, even those standing nearby can get caught in the danger. This is why insurance cover for such events matters.

Why This Matters For Families

For families of victims, the legal fight often begins after the tragedy. The family is often first made to arrange the FIR, treatment records, death certificate, event papers, and policy details before the claim moves forward.

Even after that, the insurer may still question the way the accident has been described in the records. This case shows that courts can look at the broader facts rather than allow a claim to fail only because of a missing name or an imperfect FIR entry.

The ruling also sends a message to event organisers. Insurance should not be treated as a formality taken only to meet official requirements. The terms of the policy, the category of persons covered, the insured amount, and the claim process should be clear before the event is held.

For insurers, too, the order underlines that the purpose of such a policy cannot be ignored. If a policy is issued for a high-risk event, and a death occurs during that event, the claim has to be examined fairly.

The Rs 5 lakh amount cannot make up for the loss of a life. But for the family left behind, it can provide some immediate financial support. The court’s decision, therefore, is not only about one Jallikattu accident. It is also about whether insurance cover taken for public events actually works when a family needs it the most.

FAQs

1. What did the Madras High Court direct the insurer to do?

The court directed United India Insurance Company to pay Rs 5 lakh to the family of the man who died after being attacked by a bull during a Jallikattu event.

2. Why had the insurance company opposed the claim?

The insurer raised objections over details in the FIR, including the victim’s location near the bull collection point and the absence of the bull owner’s name.

3. What does the ruling mean for event insurance claims?

The ruling shows that insurers cannot deny claims on technical grounds when the accident is clearly connected to an insured public event.