Disputed permit evidence warrants remand to determine insurer’s liability, while compensation remains payable to claimants.

On 28 February 2022, at approximately 11:00 p.m., three deceased persons—Dillip Kumar Sahoo, Jayanta Pradhan and Dibyajyoti Sahoo—were travelling in a car bearing registration no. OD-02F-5577 when a truck bearing registration no. OD-09Q-9229 allegedly collided with the car at Kantiapasi Chhak on NH-49.

The legal heirs of the deceased filed three separate motor accident claim cases, registered as MAC Case Nos. 236, 237 and 238 of 2022.

The Insurance Company appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the quantum of compensation, the finding that it alone was liable, and the failure to consider alleged composite negligence.

A permit obtained under the Right to Information Act appeared to have been issued two days after the accident, although the Insurance Company asserted that the document had been filed before the Tribunal but was not exhibited or considered.

Whether the compensation awarded under the conventional heads was excessive and required modification in light of the governing principles on such compensation?

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased persons’ income required appellate interference?

Whether the Insurance Company could be saddled with the entire liability without determining whether the offending truck possessed a valid permit on the date of the accident and whether liability involved the owner-driver or composite negligence?

Whether the permit document obtained under the Right to Information Act was admissible and required consideration by the Tribunal?

The appeals were maintained under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an aggrieved party to appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157, for the principle that compensation under conventional heads must be awarded in accordance with the amounts and categories settled by the Supreme Court; the Court treated Rs.70,000 as the applicable amount under the conventional heads in the present cases.

The Court further applied the procedural and evidentiary principle that a document affecting the insurer’s contractual or statutory liability must be considered by the Tribunal after giving both sides an opportunity to contest its admissibility and evidentiary value.

Where a policy or permit violation is established, the insurer’s right to recover the amount paid from the owner-driver may follow in accordance with law.

The Court held that the Tribunal had awarded amounts exceeding the permissible compensation under the conventional heads: Rs.2,28,000 in MACA No.415 of 2025, Rs.1,80,000 in MACA No.416 of 2025 and Rs.1,32,000 in MACA No.417 of 2025.

Applying Pranay Sethi, it reduced the conventional-head component in each case to Rs.70,000.

However, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased persons’ income, as that assessment was based on the evidence available on record.

Regarding liability, the Court noted that the permit produced by the Insurance Company appeared to have been issued two days after the accident.

Nevertheless, the record did not conclusively establish whether the truck had any valid permit on the date of the accident.

Since the permit document had allegedly not been properly exhibited or considered, and because the question of permit violation affected the inter se liability of the insurer and the owner-driver, the Court held that the issue required reconsideration by the Tribunal.

The compensation was modified to Rs.21,50,000 in MACA No.415 of 2025, Rs.15,00,000 in MACA No.416 of 2025 and Rs.14,50,000 in MACA No.417 of 2025, with interest at 6% per annum from the dates of filing of the claim applications until deposit.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the modified amounts within eight weeks, and the statutory deposits were made returnable upon proof of such deposit.

The appeals were remanded to the Tribunal on the limited issue of fixation of liability.

The Tribunal was required to decide the admissibility of the permit document after hearing both sides and, if admissible, to determine the liability of the insurer and/or owner-driver, including any consequential right of recovery in favour of the Insurance Company.

The Tribunal was directed to complete this exercise within four months.