Karnataka HC Upholds ₹10.73 Lakh Award To Lorry Cleaner Despite Alcohol Finding, As Insurer Couldn’t Prove He Was Driving

B. Suresh claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained when a lorry in which he was travelling as a cleaner toppled on 12 December 2012.

The Tribunal awarded him ₹10,73,300 with interest at 8% per annum and held the insurer liable.

The insurer appealed, disputing liability on the grounds that the claimant had been driving while intoxicated and without a licence, and that the accident history in the hospital records conflicted with the prosecution records.

The claimant sought enhancement, but his separate appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution and had not been restored.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from actionable negligence, while Section 173(1) provides for an appeal against an award.

The insurer’s challenge required evidence that the claimant himself was driving the lorry without a licence and caused the accident; intoxication and conflicting accident histories, without such supporting material, were insufficient to establish that allegation.

Under Ranjana Prakash v. Divisional Manager, (2011) 14 SCC 639, Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be used to make an award effective or to adjust liability, but cannot be invoked in an owner’s or insurer’s appeal to grant the claimant a higher award.

The Court found that the claimant’s account of the lorry rolling backwards and falling into a ditch was consistent with the claim petition, his evidence and the prosecution records.

Although the hospital records referred to the lorry hitting a compound wall and noted that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol, no material established that he was driving, lacked a driving licence or had manipulated the records to make a false claim.

The Tribunal’s finding of negligence therefore could not be displaced merely because another view of the evidence was possible.

On enhancement, the Court applied Ranjana Prakash: the claimant could not obtain a higher award in the insurer’s appeal, particularly after his own appeal had been dismissed and not restored.

It directed that the amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal for payment and that the balance be deposited within six weeks.