An insurer cannot recover compensation from the owner without proof of a policy breach.

On 3 April 2006, a dumper driven by respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2 struck the appellant, causing crushed injuries to her left foot and a fracture of her left leg.

She was hospitalised from 3 April to 10 May 2006 and claimed permanent disability and inability to work as a labourer.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded her Rs. 59,000, directing the insurer to pay and recover the amount from the owner and driver.

The claimant appealed for enhancement; the owner filed a cross-objection challenging, among other things, the recovery direction, relying on the Tribunal’s finding that the insurer had not proved a breach concerning the driver’s licence.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal warranted enhancement in light of the claimant’s injuries and treatment.

Whether the insurer could be granted recovery rights against the owner and driver when the insurer had not proved that the driver lacked a valid and effective driving licence.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a respondent to file a cross-objection in an appeal.

The Court assessed whether the compensation was just in light of the injuries, treatment and evidence on record, and treated proof of the alleged driving-licence breach as necessary to sustain the insurer’s recovery rights.

The MLC and X-ray report showed that the appellant had sustained crushed injuries to her left foot; considering those injuries, her hospitalisation and treatment, and the existing award, the Court found that an additional lump sum of Rs. 10,000 was justified.

As to recovery rights, the record contained no evidence that the driver lacked a valid licence, the charge-sheet did not identify such a deficiency, and the Tribunal had itself found that the insurer failed to prove the alleged breach.

The recovery direction was therefore inconsistent with the Tribunal’s findings and could not stand.

The owner’s cross-objection was also partly allowed: the insurer’s recovery rights against the owner and driver were set aside, and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award, including the enhancement, without recovery from them.

The remaining findings of the Tribunal were left intact, and no order as to costs was made.