Kinship alone cannot defeat paid-driver status where the policy covers the driver’s risk.

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s dismissal of his claim petition.

The Tribunal had assessed compensation at ₹2,93,700 with interest at 9% per annum, but found that the claimant had not proved he was a paid driver and exonerated the vehicle owner and insurer.

Its finding rested on the claimant’s relationship as the owner’s brother-in-law.

The claimant relied on the owner’s testimony that he had engaged him as a driver; the insurer led no evidence to rebut that account.

The policy covered the risk of a paid driver, and the corresponding premium had been accepted.

1. Whether the claimant’s relationship to the vehicle owner, by itself, justified finding that he was not employed as a paid driver.

2. Whether the insurer could be held liable for the compensation assessed by the Tribunal where the policy covered a paid driver’s risk and the corresponding premium had been accepted.

Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act was cited in the judgment’s discussion of statutory coverage for paid drivers and conductors; the judgment also referred to the policy’s paid-driver coverage and the additional premium accepted by the insurer.

The Court relied on N.K.V. Bros. Private Limited v. M. Karumai Ammal (1980) for the principle that claims should be determined on the evidence and settled legal principles, rather than defeated by technicalities, and that compensation should be just, fair and reasonable.

It also reproduced the Division Bench’s reasoning in Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) v. Kandla Dock Labour Board & Anr., First Appeal No. 3907 of 2017 and allied matters, concerning insurance coverage for paid drivers where additional premium has been accepted.

The Court held that the Tribunal’s inference—that the claimant could not have been a paid driver because he was related to the owner—was unsupported by evidence and based on surmise.

The owner had testified that he engaged the claimant as a driver, and the insurer had adduced no evidence to rebut that testimony.

Given the policy’s paid-driver coverage and the accepted premium, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim and exonerating the insurer on that basis.

The Court also considered the Tribunal’s approach inconsistent with the principle against allowing technicalities to displace a determination based on the evidence and applicable law.

It held the claimant entitled to ₹2,93,700 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimant after verification and deduction of any unpaid court fees.