An insurer must prove policy breach with cogent evidence to avoid liability.

On 26 February 2008, Jagveer Singh, aged about 21, died when Tempo No. MH-08-BV-2641 overturned in Maharashtra.

His father claimed compensation, alleging that the deceased earned ₹6,000 per month and was dependent on him.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that the accident resulted from rash and negligent driving and awarded ₹2,50,000 with 6% annual interest, directing the insurer, owner and driver to satisfy the award.

The insurer appealed, disputing its liability on grounds including overloading and breach of policy conditions, and challenging the compensation assessment.

1. Whether the insurer established a breach of the insurance policy or other legal requirements sufficient to avoid liability, including alleged overloading or invalid vehicle documents.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation, including its findings on income, personal expenses and multiplier, warranted appellate interference.

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

The Court applied the principle that an insurer seeking to avoid its liability on the ground of breach of a policy condition must establish the alleged breach by cogent evidence.

The Court also considered the Tribunal’s calculation of dependency by deducting one-third of the deceased’s income for personal expenses and applying a multiplier of five.

The policy was in force on the accident date, the vehicle’s permit was valid for the relevant period and territory, and the driving licence was valid.

The insurer produced no reliable evidence that the tempo was overloaded or that another policy condition had been breached; its assertions alone did not discharge its evidentiary burden.

On quantum, the insurer failed to demonstrate an error warranting interference with the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income, deduction for personal expenses, multiplier or conventional heads.

The ₹2,00,000 already deposited was to be adjusted against the award, and the insurer was directed to pay the remaining ₹50,000 with applicable interest within one month; the deposited amount and any sum already released were to be dealt with or adjusted as specified by the Court.