Insurer is liable where the insured auto driver’s negligence is established and no policy violation is proved.

On 16 January 2016, Nagu was travelling as a passenger in an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. TN 73 B 5762, travelling from Arcot towards Kalavai. The auto collided head-on with a tanker lorry bearing registration No. TN 10J 2909 near Kadapanthangal Sakthi Stores, resulting in fatal injuries to Nagu.

Her husband and daughters filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver, found no policy violation, and fastened liability on the auto’s insurer. It awarded total compensation of Rs.14,35,000, including Rs.12,60,000 towards loss of dependency. The appellant-insurer challenged only the fixation of liability under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver or the lorry driver?

Whether the appellant, as insurer of the auto, was liable to satisfy the compensation awarded to the claimants?

Whether the Tribunal’s award required interference in the absence of any dispute regarding the quantum of compensation?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Liability in a motor accident claim depends upon proof of actionable negligence and the causal connection between the negligent driving and the resulting death. The Court considered the FIR, oral evidence, the accident sketch, and the conduct of the parties in assessing negligence. It further applied the principle that an insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to satisfy the award where the vehicle was insured and no policy violation is established.

For the assessment of compensation, the Tribunal had relied on the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, including addition for future prospects and the appropriate multiplier.

The appellant argued that the accident sketch showed the lorry crossing the centre lane while negotiating a curve and striking the auto, and that the Tribunal had improperly relied on the testimony of the lorry driver, who was an interested witness.

The Court, however, noted that the FIR had been registered against the auto driver and that the evidence of PW2 was consistent with the FIR. The lorry driver, examined as RW3, deposed that the auto driver alone was responsible for the accident.

Significantly, the appellant did not examine the auto driver or any independent witness to establish that the lorry driver was negligent, nor did it show that any notice had been issued to the auto owner-driver to secure his evidence. The auto owner-driver had remained ex parte and had not entered the witness box. On the basis of the FIR, the claimants’ evidence, the evidence of RW3, and the absence of proof of policy violation, the Court upheld the finding that the auto driver was negligent and that the appellant’s insured vehicle was the offending vehicle. Since the quantum was not challenged, there was no basis to disturb the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the award dated 20 February 2020 in MACTOP No.127 of 2016 was confirmed. The appellant was directed to deposit the award amount, together with interest and costs and after deducting any amount already deposited, within four weeks before the Tribunal. Disbursement was directed to be made in accordance with the Tribunal’s order; no costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.