Injured Lorry Cleaner’s Award Raised To Rs 65,450: Karnataka HC Directs Insurer To Pay First, Recover From Owner

On 23 August 2012, the appellant, a cleaner in the first respondent’s lorry, was injured when he fell from the vehicle during an accident near Khandal, Maharashtra.

He claimed that the accident resulted from the driver’s rash and negligent driving and sought compensation for his injuries and resulting loss of income.

The Tribunal awarded him ₹46,450 with interest at 6% per annum, but directed the owner—not the insurer—to pay.

The claimant appealed, seeking enhancement and relying on documents showing insurance cover and a temporary permit.

Under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an insurer may raise a defence where the vehicle’s driver was not duly licensed.

However, the Court relied on Rama Bai v. M/s. Amit Minerals and Another, 2025 SCC 2067, for the principle that, even where the insurer establishes a policy breach, it may be directed to satisfy the award and recover the amount from the insured owner (“pay and recover”).

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court found that the appellant had sustained a fracture, had been hospitalised for two days, and required approximately two months to recover.

Although there was no proof of functional disability or of an operation, the Court considered the injuries and medical evidence sufficient to increase the amounts for pain and suffering, laid-up-period income, and food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance expenses.

It also found that the Tribunal had overlooked the insurance document.

The permit issue did not prevent the claimant from receiving compensation; applying the pay-and-recover principle, the Court held that the insurer should satisfy the award and could then recover from the owner.

The operative order enhanced the award from ₹46,450 to ₹65,450, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the petition date, excluding the 812-day delay in filing the appeal.

The insurer was directed to deposit the entire compensation with accrued interest within six weeks and was permitted to recover it from the owner.

The judgment contains an apparent inconsistency: paragraph 19 states ₹60,450, whereas the compensation table totals ₹65,450 and the operative order awards ₹65,450.