Insurer must satisfy third-party awards first, then recover from the insured for the absent driver badge endorsement.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sivakasi, awarded the claimants Rs.30,40,630 for the death of Mathiyaraja following an accident involving a lorry insured by the appellant.

The Insurance Company appealed, challenging its liability, the causal link between the accident and death, the absence of a required badge endorsement for the insured driver, and the Tribunal’s failure to find contributory negligence because the deceased allegedly was not wearing a helmet

The High Court found that the Tribunal had held the insured lacked the necessary badge endorsement, but had not granted the insurer pay-and-recovery rights

1. Whether the insurer was liable to compensate the deceased third party’s dependants where the insured himself was driving the insured vehicle

2. Whether the evidence established a causal link between the accident and the deceased’s death

3. Whether the absence of a badge endorsement entitled the insurer to pay the claimants and recover the amount from the insured

4. Whether the deceased’s alleged failure to wear a helmet justified a finding of contributory negligence

Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer’s appeal was brought under Section 173

The Court applied the principle that a valid motor insurance policy protects third parties injured by the insured vehicle; it distinguished *Beli Ram v. Rajinder Kumar*, 2020 (2) TN MAC 445 (SC), because that case concerned an employee’s compensation claim, not compensation for the dependants of a third-party accident victim

The Court also relied on the pay-and-recovery approach where the insured driver lacked the required badge endorsement

It distinguished *Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited v. Rajamani*, 2026 ACJ 1030, because the present record did not conclusively establish either that the deceased was not wearing a helmet or that its absence contributed to the death

The deceased was a third party to the policy, and the insurer did not establish that the insured’s role as driver extinguished coverage for a third-party claim; *Beli Ram* was therefore inapplicable

The claimants’ documentary evidence, Exs. P4–P18, supported the Tribunal’s finding of a causal link between the accident injuries and the death

Although the Tribunal found that the insured lacked the necessary badge endorsement, it had not granted the insurer recovery rights; the Court treated that omission as the error requiring correction

The contributory-negligence argument failed because the insurer produced no witness or other conclusive evidence that the deceased was helmetless, or that not wearing a helmet contributed to the death

The insurer was directed to deposit the full award amount, if not already deposited, within six weeks; the claimants could withdraw it in accordance with the Tribunal’s award, and the insurer could recover the amount from the insured, the sixth respondent

The compensation quantum and the Tribunal’s other findings were left undisturbed; no costs were awarded