Absence of Specific Pleading and Oral Evidence Precludes Insurer’s Right of Recovery for Invalid Driving License

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (the appellant) challenged a judgment dated 18.10.2023 passed by the 7th MACT, Bhubaneswar, in MAC Case No. 70 of 2013.

The Tribunal had awarded compensation of ₹15,10,800/- to the claimants (respondents) following a motor vehicle accident on 23.04.2013.

The insurer appealed the award on three grounds: the lack of a "right of recovery" against the owner due to the driver's alleged invalid Driving License (DL), an arbitrary assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹6,000, and an excessive consortium award.

1. Whether the insurer is entitled to the right of recovery on the grounds that the driver of the offending vehicle lacked a valid DL at the time of the accident.

2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal (income assessment and consortium) was excessive and required modification.

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding appeals against awards.

The insurer must specifically plead and prove a breach of policy conditions—such as the lack of a valid/commercial license—through oral or documentary evidence.

Mere marking of a document (e.g., RTI information) as an exhibit does not dispense with the need to prove its contents through examination of witnesses.

Reliance on the precedent of Taslim Parvin & Another v. (Smt.) Usha Devi & Another; 2018(2) TAC 22 (SC) to facilitate a just and consensus-based settlement.

Regarding the license issue, the Court found that the DL (Ext. A) was valid from 2009 to 2027, covering the date of the accident (2013).

The Court rejected the insurer’s plea for recovery because the appellant failed to examine the author of the RTI document or the person who obtained it, and failed to take a specific plea in the Written Statement (WS) regarding the lack of a commercial endorsement.

On the issue of quantum, instead of a strictly adversarial adjudication, the Court initiated a negotiation with the parties. Noting the respondents’ consent via a filed memo, the Court determined that the income and consortium disputes could be efficiently resolved by reducing the total compensation to a lump sum of ₹12,00,000/-.

The appeal was partly allowed by modifying the quantum of compensation. The Court ordered the appellant-insurer to pay a reduced sum of ₹12,00,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing (10.05.2013) to be disbursed proportionately among the surviving claimants (Respondents 1 to 3), including the share of the deceased Respondent No. 4. The statutory deposit was ordered to be refunded upon proof of payment.