A Trailer’s Attachment Alone Does Not Prove an LMV-Licensed Driver Was Unauthorised to Drive the Tractor- Trailer Combination.

On 15 November 2007, a tractor with an attached trailer struck and fatally injured Arunachalam while he was riding a bicycle.

The tractor was insured with the third respondent and the trailer with the appellant, New India Assurance Company. The deceased’s legal representatives sought compensation in M.C.O.P.No.435 of 2008. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,64,000 and fixed liability on the insurers.

The appellant challenged the award, contending that the driver held only an LMV licence despite the combined vehicle allegedly weighing over 7,500 kg, and that the Tribunal had applied an incorrect multiplier of 18 to a deceased aged about 70.

1. Whether a driver holding an LMV licence was authorised to drive the tractor-trailer involved in the accident.

2. Whether the alleged licensing deficiency established a breach of policy conditions warranting the insurer’s exoneration or an order of pay and recovery.

3. Whether the multiplier of 18 was legally sustainable and, if not, whether the compensation should be reduced.

Sections 2(14), 2(44) and 2(46) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 define “goods carriage,” “tractor” and “trailer,” respectively; whether a tractor-trailer answers the definition of a goods carriage depends on its construction, adaptation and use.

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, (2004) 8 SCC 697, the Supreme Court held that a tractor is not by itself a goods carriage and that a tractor with a trailer may or may not qualify as one.

An insurer alleging breach of policy conditions must prove that breach by acceptable evidence.

Under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, as affirmed and explained in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the multiplier is determined by the deceased’s age; a multiplier of 18 is not appropriate for a person aged about 70.

The Court held that attachment of a trailer alone did not establish that the driver required an HMV licence. Although the insurer alleged that the combined vehicle exceeded 7,500 kg, it did not satisfactorily prove the vehicle’s relevant classification, the applicable licensing requirement, or that the driver was disqualified from driving it. The Court therefore found no basis to exonerate the appellant.

It also held that the Tribunal’s multiplier of 18 was erroneous, but concluded that this did not require reducing the total award: the Tribunal had made no award for future prospects, and the overall compensation had to be assessed alongside the other permissible heads.

The appellant and respondents 2 to 4 were directed to deposit the award, with accrued interest and costs if not already deposited, within six weeks; the legal representatives could then withdraw their apportioned shares in accordance with law.