Karnataka HC Dismisses Coolie’s Injury Claim After Unexplained Clash Between His Trailer-Collision Account And “Fall From Tractor” Records

The claimant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that a tractor-trailer reversed into him while he was standing behind it after travelling with the vehicle to unload areca nut.

The Tribunal found the driver negligent and awarded ₹1,67,500 with 6% interest, holding the owner and insurer liable.

The insurer appealed on liability, relying on medical records that described the injuries as resulting from a “fall from tractor,” in contrast to the claimant’s account that the trailer struck him while he was standing behind the vehicle.

The claimant’s petition was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the insurer’s appeal was under Section 173(1) of that Act.

The Court applied the principle that an unexplained inconsistency in the evidence may invite an adverse inference where the competing versions materially affect liability.

It also reasoned that if the claimant had fallen while travelling on the tractor engine, rather than been struck while standing behind the vehicle, that circumstance could amount to a breach of the insurance terms; in that situation, the insurer would be liable to pay the claimant in the first instance but could recover the amount from the owner.

The claimant’s complaint and the police records supported his account that he was standing behind the tractor-trailer when it reversed and struck him.

However, the wound certificate, discharge summary and case sheet recorded the history of injury as a “fall from tractor,” and the claimant did not explain the discrepancy.

Because the difference determined whether he was a pedestrian struck by the vehicle or an occupant who fell from the tractor engine—and thus affected the insurance liability analysis—the Court held that the unexplained inconsistency warranted an adverse inference.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and award, and dismissed the claim petition.

It directed that the amount in deposit be released electronically to the insurer.