An insurer cannot avoid liability on an unsubstantiated allegation that the driver was intoxicated.

The claimant was injured while travelling in an auto that collided with a tractor on 22 June 2020. He alleged that the tractor driver was driving rashly and negligently and sought compensation.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded ₹1,18,380 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The insurer appealed, contending that the tractor driver was under the influence of alcohol and disputing its liability on that basis.

Whether the evidence established that the tractor driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, entitling the insurer to avoid liability.

Whether the Tribunal’s award of compensation required interference.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Its reasoning applied the evidentiary principle that a party relying on a factual defence must support it with reliable evidence; in this case, the insurer’s allegation of intoxication could not succeed without evidence establishing that allegation.

The Court also assessed whether the Tribunal’s compensation award was just and reasonable on the evidence before it.

The Court found that neither oral nor documentary evidence established that the tractor driver had consumed alcohol or was under its influence, and the Investigating Officer had produced no supporting material.

It therefore rejected the insurer’s intoxication defence and declined to disturb the Tribunal’s finding.

On quantum, the Court considered the claimant’s injuries, age, disability certificate and medical bills, and concluded that the compensation awarded was just and reasonable.

It directed the insurer to deposit the award amount, if not already deposited, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit, within four weeks of receiving the order; the claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount with accrued interest and costs in accordance with law.

No costs were awarded.