Injured Lorry Cleaner’s Unchallenged Evidence Defeats Insurer’s Gratuitous-Passenger Claim As Madras HC Upholds 90% Liability

The claimant said he was employed as a cleaner-cum-loadman in the insured lorry and was injured when he fell from it after the driver suddenly applied the brakes.

The insurer contended that he was instead a gratuitous passenger travelling with villagers to attend a funeral, and that the policy did not cover his risk.

The Tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence, awarded ₹3,39,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum, and attributed 10% contributory negligence to him, fastening 90% liability on the insured vehicle.

The insurer appealed, challenging liability but not the quantum.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

On the evidentiary question, the Court applied the principle that a material assertion made by a witness in chief examination may be given weight where it is not effectively challenged in cross-examination.

The claimant testified that he was employed as a cleaner-cum-loadman, and the insurer did not effectively challenge that material assertion in cross-examination.

The insurer’s contrary account—that he was a gratuitous passenger—was unsupported by convincing evidence; a contrary plea in the counter was insufficient to displace the unchallenged testimony.

The Court therefore found no perversity or infirmity in the Tribunal’s finding as to the claimant’s status.

As the insurer did not challenge the quantum, the Court declined to reopen it.

The insurer was directed to deposit 90% of the award, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit, after crediting any amount already deposited, within eight weeks of receiving the judgment; the claimant may withdraw the amount under the Tribunal’s procedure.

No costs were ordered.