A vehicle owner’s unsupported alternative-driver plea cannot defeat corroborated evidence identifying the driver.

On 17 January 2020, minor Tameshwar Kumar was injured when a tractor allegedly driven negligently struck him; surgery resulted in the amputation of a finger.

He sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹1,62,603 with interest against the tractor’s registered owner, directing the insurer to pay and recover the amount from the owner after finding a breach of policy conditions arising from the absence of a valid driving licence. The owner appealed, contending that his son, Devendra, rather than the deceased Govardhan Sahu, had been driving the tractor

Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that Govardhan Sahu was driving the offending tractor at the time of the accident, rather than the appellant’s son, Devendra

Whether the Tribunal’s award and its direction that the insurer pay the compensation and recover it from the registered owner required interference

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor-vehicle accident, while Section 173 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal

The Court assessed the disputed driver’s identity on the evidence in the record, including the injured claimant’s testimony and contemporaneous police documents

The Tribunal had treated the absence of a valid driving licence as a breach of the insurance policy condition and directed the insurer to satisfy the award, with recovery from the registered owner

The claimant testified that Govardhan Sahu was driving the tractor, and his account was supported by police documents, including the arrest memo identifying Govardhan as the driver

The owner’s alternative account—that Devendra was driving—was not supported by any police complaint alleging that Govardhan had been wrongly identified; the Court considered that omission significant, particularly because the owner was responsible for the vehicle. It therefore found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s assessment of the oral and documentary evidence or its resulting award

The award of ₹1,62,603 with interest, including the insurer’s direction to pay and recover from the registered owner, remained undisturbed; the record was directed to be returned to the Tribunal for necessary action