Insurer must prove driving-licence violation; unsubstantiated allegations cannot justify pay-and-recovery.

The deceased, Sivaprathaban, was riding motorcycle No. TN 42 B 0627 on 18 July 2023 when motorcycle No. TN 05 CM 2207, allegedly ridden rashly and negligently, collided with him. He sustained head injuries, was treated at Stanley Medical College Hospital, and died during treatment.

His wife, two minor sons, mother and father filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, asserting that he was aged 41 years and earned Rs.43,700 per month as a Chennai Area Sales Manager.

The insurer denied negligence, alleged that the deceased also contributed to the accident, contended that the deceased’s vehicle and its owner/insurer were necessary parties, and alleged that the rider of the insured vehicle lacked a valid driving licence.

The Tribunal relied on the eyewitness evidence of PW2, fixed the deceased’s age at 39 years, adopted a multiplier of 15, assessed notional monthly income at Rs.17,500, added 40% towards future prospects, and awarded Rs.35,70,500 as compensation.

The insurer challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

1. Whether the insurer established that the rider of the insured motorcycle did not possess a valid driving licence so as to justify an order of pay and recovery.

2. Whether the accident involved negligence or composite negligence on the part of the deceased, warranting a reduction in compensation.

3. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of notional income at Rs.17,500 per month and addition of 40% towards future prospects were excessive or legally unsustainable.

4. Whether the compensation of Rs.35,70,500 awarded by the Tribunal required interference.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permits an appeal against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

An insurer alleging breach of policy conditions, including absence of a valid driving licence, bears the burden of proving that breach through reliable evidence; a mere allegation or reference in the charge sheet is insufficient.

The assessment of loss of dependency is governed by the multiplier method in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, under which the appropriate multiplier is selected with reference to the deceased’s age.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, future prospects may be added to the established or assessed income.

In the absence of satisfactory proof of actual income, a reasonable notional income may be adopted, including in accordance with Andal v. Avinav Kannan.

Compensation under conventional heads must be just and fair.

The Court held that the insurer failed to prove the alleged absence of a valid driving licence. Although the insurer relied on the charge sheet and raised the plea in its written statement, it neither examined a witness nor produced documentary evidence establishing the breach; the registration certificate alone did not prove the licence violation.

Consequently, pay and recovery could not be ordered, and the insurer remained liable to satisfy the award.

The Tribunal had accepted PW2’s eyewitness account that the insured motorcycle was ridden rashly and negligently, and the insurer produced no contrary evidence sufficient to establish contributory or composite negligence.

Regarding quantum, the Court found that the salary certificate showed varying gross salaries for three months and that no salary slips were produced to establish a monthly income of Rs.43,700. The Tribunal therefore reasonably adopted Rs.17,500 as notional income.

Applying the deceased’s age of 39 years, multiplier 15, 40% future prospects and a one-fourth deduction for five dependants was consistent with Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi.

The amounts awarded under the remaining heads were also found just and fair.

The award of Rs.35,70,500 in M.C.O.P. No.1977 of 2024 was confirmed, and C.M.A. No.2544 of 2026 was dismissed without costs.

The connected C.M.P. was closed.