An insurer cannot avoid liability through an unpleaded, unproven claim that another person was driving.

On 9 February 2020, Tekeshwar Nirmalkar died from injuries sustained when motorcycle No. CG-23-H-7461 struck him.

His wife, children and mother claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the motorcycle insured with the appellant and held that no breach of the insurance conditions had been established. It awarded ₹15,44,200 with interest against the insurer.

The insurer appealed under Section 173, arguing that Shikhar Dhruv—not Ghanshyam Dhruv, who was prosecuted—was driving the motorcycle and lacked a valid licence.

Whether the insurer established that Shikhar Dhruv, rather than Ghanshyam Dhruv, was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident

Whether the insurer proved a breach of the insurance conditions sufficient to avoid liability for the compensation award

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the insurer’s appeal was brought under Section 173.

The Court applied the principle that a party’s case must be founded on its pleadings; the insurer’s alternative-driver contention had not been pleaded in its written statement.

In assessing the evidence, the Court treated an unproved newspaper report as having no evidentiary value on the identity of the driver, and noted that the insurer’s investigator could not establish the report’s contents without being an eyewitness or proving the investigation.

The insurer’s contention that Shikhar Dhruv was driving was unsupported by its pleadings.

The newspaper report relied on by the insurer had no proved source, and the insurer’s investigator neither witnessed the accident nor established the report’s contents.

By contrast, claimant-side witness Ganesh Kumar Markandeya testified that he saw the accident and Ghanshyam Dhruv driving; the Court found that this testimony had not been effectively discredited. Ghanshyam was also the person prosecuted in connection with the accident.

The insurer therefore failed to establish the asserted driver substitution or a policy breach warranting relief from liability.

The award of ₹15,44,200 with interest against the insurer was left undisturbed.

The Tribunal record was directed to be returned for necessary action.