An insurer cannot prove the deceased was driving solely through unverified hospital-record entries.

On 23 July 2018, Swami Lingaiah was injured in a motorcycle accident and died the following day.

His dependants claimed that he was a pillion rider on the motorcycle, which was ridden by Ranganatha G.M.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹27,55,000 with interest at 6% per annum and directed the insurer to pay.

The insurer appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the deceased was riding the motorcycle, was not wearing a helmet, and had consumed alcohol.

It relied on hospital records marked as Exs. R1 and R2.

1. Whether the insurer established that the deceased was riding the motorcycle, rather than travelling as a pillion rider.

2. Whether the hospital records established that the deceased was not wearing a helmet and had consumed alcohol.

3. Whether the Tribunal’s award warranted interference in the insurer’s appeal.

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court assessed the probative value of the hospital records in light of their contents, the identity and knowledge of the persons who supplied the recorded information, and whether the insurer had examined the relevant authors to establish disputed or altered entries.

The insurer cited North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Gaurabai and Others, (2009) 15 SCC 165, concerning reliance on a hospital document and the evidence of its author; the judgment recounts that submission but does not state or apply a separate rule from that decision.

The Court found that Ex. R2, the Sira hospital record, contained an unstruck entry describing the injured as a pillion rider in a road-traffic accident.

Although words had been scratched out, the insurer did not examine the record’s author to establish that the deleted wording showed the deceased was driving.

Ex. R1 recorded information supplied by Bhaskar, the deceased’s brother-in-law, but the insurer did not establish that he witnessed the accident.

In the absence of such supporting evidence, the records did not prove that the deceased was the rider, was not wearing a helmet, or had consumed alcohol.

Once the Court accepted that he was a pillion rider, the question of alcohol consumption became irrelevant to the appeal.

It dismissed the appeal and directed that the amount deposited before the High Court be transmitted to the Tribunal along with the trial court records.