An insurer’s unsubstantiated driving-licence defence does not warrant interference with a motor accident award.

On 27 October 2017, Jayaraman was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle when it collided with a lorry insured by the appellant; he died at the scene.

His family sought compensation, and the Tribunal awarded ₹43,38,800, reduced by 5% for contributory negligence, resulting in an award of ₹41,21,860.

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging liability and the quantum of compensation. It disputed the driver’s valid licence and the income and other amounts assessed by the Tribunal.

The High Court also noted that two claimant-respondents had since attained majority and discharged their mother from guardianship.

1. Whether the insurer’s challenge to liability, based on the alleged absence of a valid driving licence, warranted interference with the Tribunal’s award.

2. Whether the income assessed and compensation awarded under the various heads were excessive and required modification.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

In resolving the licence challenge, it relied on the evidentiary record: the licence was not produced, and the appellant had not examined the concerned Regional Transport Officer to establish the alleged absence of a valid licence.

The Court also stated that the insurer of the offending vehicle was liable to compensate the claimants once the accident was attributed to that vehicle’s rash and negligent driving.

The Court declined to disturb the Tribunal’s liability finding because the appellant had not produced the licence or examined the relevant RTO to substantiate its allegation.

It confirmed the Tribunal’s finding of negligence and the 5% contributory-negligence deduction, although its discussion refers to the motorcycle driver’s licence while describing the deceased as the pillion rider.

On quantum, it held that the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹26,000, based on the salary slip, and its awards under the other heads were not excessive.

The insurer was directed to deposit the award amount, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition and costs, less any amount already deposited, within four weeks. The Tribunal was directed to transfer the amount to the claimants by RTGS within two weeks of deposit.

The Court also declared respondents 3 and 4 to be majors and discharged their mother from guardianship.