Insurer cannot avoid liability for driving-licence breach without adducing supporting evidence.

On 3 May 2019, Manji Kesha Anavadiya was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle from Rapar to Samakhiyali when a TVS Luna allegedly emerged from a railway gate without due caution and collided with the motorcycle.

The deceased sustained serious injuries and subsequently died.

The claimants instituted M.A.C.P. No. 300 of 2020 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Kachchh at Bhachau.

The Tribunal awarded ₹47,70,001 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The insurer challenged the award, contending that the Tribunal had improperly assessed the deceased’s income on the basis of his income-tax return, awarded excessive medical expenses, and failed to exonerate the insurer despite the offending Luna allegedly being driven without a valid driving licence.

The claimants supported the award, relying on the deceased’s income-tax return and medical bills produced in evidence.

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased’s income on the basis of his income-tax return rather than minimum wages?

Whether the amount of ₹2,80,785 awarded towards medical expenses was excessive or unsupported by the evidence?

Whether the insurer proved a breach of the insurance policy conditions by establishing that the Luna driver did not possess a valid driving licence, thereby entitling the insurer to exoneration?

The Court applied the principle that a deceased person’s established actual income may be assessed on the basis of a duly proved income-tax return, rather than by mechanically applying minimum wages.

It relied on Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2023 (3) GLR 1617 (SC), which supports reliance on income-tax records for determining income in motor accident compensation claims.

The Court further applied the evidentiary principle that an insurer raising a defence of breach of policy conditions—such as absence of a valid driving licence—must substantiate that defence through oral or documentary evidence; a mere plea in the written statement is insufficient.

Medical compensation may be awarded when supported by medical bills proved on record.

The Court found no error in the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s net annual income at ₹3,93,953 after deduction of income tax, because the income-tax return for 2018–2019 had been proved in evidence and the deceased was shown to be operating “M.K. Store”.

The insurer’s contention that minimum wages should have been applied was therefore rejected.

The award of ₹2,80,785 towards medical expenses was also upheld because the corresponding medical bills were produced collectively at Exh. 46 and supported the actual expenditure incurred after the accident.

As to liability, although the insurer pleaded that the Luna driver lacked a valid driving licence, it adduced no oral or documentary evidence to establish that alleged breach.

Since the defence remained unsupported beyond the written statement, the Court held that the insurer had failed to discharge the evidentiary burden necessary for exoneration.

It upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of income, the award of ₹2,80,785 for medical expenses, and the insurer’s liability to satisfy the compensation award.

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.

The award of ₹47,70,001 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing until realization was maintained.

The Record and Proceedings were directed to be returned to the Tribunal, and the statutory amount deposited before the High Court was ordered to be remitted to the concerned Tribunal; no order was made as to costs.