An insurer must prove licence violations; an unverified RTO endorsement alone is insufficient.

On 4 July 2011, Deril D’Souza was injured while travelling in a car that collided with a lorry.

He claimed compensation from the owners and insurers of both vehicles.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the lorry driver’s rash and negligent driving caused the accident and awarded D’Souza ₹85,000 with interest at 6% per annum.

The insurer appealed, disputing liability on the ground that the lorry driver lacked a valid licence; D’Souza cross-appealed, seeking enhanced compensation.

The High Court considered the appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the lorry insurer was liable required modification because the driver allegedly lacked a valid driving licence.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required enhancement.

The appeals were brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court considered whether the insurer had established a breach of the policy condition concerning the driver’s licence and whether the compensation was unsupported or inadequate on the evidence.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a separate statutory test for proving a licence breach; it assesses the insurer’s evidence and the record before the Tribunal.

The insurer relied on an endorsement from the Transport Officer stating that the licence particulars could not be traced. However, it did not examine an official from the transport authority to speak to the endorsement’s contents.

The High Court therefore found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s conclusion that the insurer had failed to establish a policy breach.

On quantum, no doctor testified to establish disability or loss of earning capacity.

The Court considered the injuries, noting that the three fractures were at virtually one site, and found the amounts awarded for pain and suffering, medical expenses, treatment-period income loss, and incidental expenses not grossly inadequate.

It left undisturbed the Tribunal’s award of ₹85,000 with interest at 6% per annum and the finding that the lorry insurer was liable.

The amount deposited in the insurer’s appeal was ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal; any balance was to be deposited within six weeks, after which the entire compensation was to be released to the claimant.