Insurance Company liable for compensation absent evidence proving lack of valid permit despite policy violation claims.

The litigation arose from a motor vehicle accident involving an auto-rickshaw (C.G.-11/A.D.-8019). The claimant, Ramkishun Banjare, suffered injuries resulting in the amputation of his right leg above the knee.

On April 6, 2019, the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, awarded the claimant ₹6,74,000/-.

The Insurance Company appealed (MAC No. 1335/2019) seeking to be exonerated from liability, alleging the vehicle lacked a valid permit.

Simultaneously, the claimant appealed (MAC No. 1412/2019) seeking enhancement of the compensation, specifically citing the omission of future prospects and inadequacies in other heads.

1. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation despite alleging the vehicle lacked a valid permit.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement regarding future prospects, disability impact, and non-pecuniary heads.

The Court applied the principles of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the liability of insurers and the assessment of "just compensation."

It followed the established legal doctrines for calculating loss of future income based on the multiplier method, including the mandatory addition of "future prospects" for injured victims with permanent disability.

The Court also adhered to the burden of proof principle in insurance contracts, where the insurer must lead cogent evidence to prove a breach of policy conditions, such as the absence of a valid permit.

Regarding the Insurance Company's appeal, the Court found that while a general defense of policy violation was pleaded, the insurer failed to conduct an investigation or lead specific evidence to prove the absence of a valid permit.

Therefore, the Tribunal’s finding of liability was upheld.

Regarding enhancement, the Court noted that the Tribunal failed to award "future prospects" and provided insufficient compensation for "pain and suffering" and other non-pecuniary losses given the claimant's leg amputation.

The Court revised the monthly income based on minimum wages, added 40% for future prospects, applied a multiplier of 16, and assessed the functional disability at 50%. Additionally, the Court introduced or increased amounts for loss of amenities, mental agony, and loss of marriage prospects to align with the severity of the injury.

The Court dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal (MAC No. 1335/2019) and allowed the claimant's appeal (MAC No. 1412/2019).

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹6,74,000/- to ₹10,84,000/-, granting an additional amount of ₹4,10,000/-. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount within three months with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim.