Karnataka HC Sets Aside ₹8.96-Lakh Death Award, Gives Family Fresh Chance To Prove Insured Scorpio Caused Crash

The claimants alleged that on 11 August 2010, a Scorpio insured by the appellant struck and killed Tulasi Ramprasad while he was riding his motorcycle.

His wife, children and father sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal awarded them ₹8,96,000 with interest at 8% per annum, finding the accident resulted from the Scorpio driver’s rash and negligent driving.

The insurer appealed, principally contending that its insured vehicle had been falsely implicated.

It relied on a police C-report stating that the vehicle was elsewhere, while the claimants alleged that political influence had affected the investigation.

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

The judgment applied the principle that a claimant seeking compensation must establish the offending vehicle’s involvement and actionable negligence on the evidence presented; inconclusive material does not justify fastening liability on the insurer.

The complaint was filed the day after the accident and identified the Scorpio based on information from an alleged eyewitness.

The spot mahazar recorded that the vehicle had not stopped at the scene, and the MVI report noted no damage, although the inspection occurred more than a month later.

The Tribunal’s observation that the vehicle was present at the spot during the mahazar was inconsistent with that record.

The police C-report and related final report indicated that the Scorpio was parked at its owner’s house, while the claimants had not examined the investigating officer to support their allegation that political influence had undermined the investigation.

The High Court therefore found the evidence inconclusive, but considered it appropriate in a death claim to allow the claimants an opportunity to prove their case.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s award and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, permitting the claimants to examine the investigating officer or another eyewitness to establish actionable negligence.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 2 December 2026; the Tribunal was directed to expedite the proceedings, and the deposited amount was ordered to be refunded to the insurer.