Sugarcane Worker Thrown From Lorry After Sudden Braking; Madras HC Upholds ₹12.86 Lakh Award Against Insurer

Lakshmanan died after being injured while travelling in the insured lorry as a loadman and sugarcane-cutting worker.

His family claimed that the lorry driver suddenly turned and applied the brakes, throwing Lakshmanan from the vehicle and causing him to be run over.

The insurer disputed the lorry’s involvement, contending that an unknown two-wheeler struck Lakshmanan while he was returning from a meal stop.

The Tribunal found the lorry driver negligent and awarded the claimants Rs. 12,86,875.

The insurer appealed, challenging the finding on negligence and the award.

A motor-accident claim is assessed on the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities; closure of a police investigation as undetectable does not determine negligence before the Tribunal, which must decide the issue independently on the evidence.

Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claimant may seek compensation for death arising from a motor accident, and Section 173 provides for an appeal against the Tribunal’s award.

For compensation, the Court applied National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, concerning future prospects, and upheld the Tribunal’s use of a 25% addition, a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13.

The Court found that the deceased’s presence in the lorry immediately before the occurrence was not disputed, including by the owner’s evidence.

The owner’s account that an unknown two-wheeler caused the injuries was weakened by the Accident Register, which recorded two unknown persons as having brought the deceased to hospital, and by the absence of a complaint, supporting witnesses, or testimony from the lorry driver.

The eyewitness evidence and FIR supported the claimants’ account, while the post-mortem injuries were consistent with their explanation and did not establish the alternative version.

Applying the preponderance-of-probabilities standard, the Court declined to disturb the Tribunal’s negligence finding.

It also held that the Tribunal’s assessment of pecuniary loss was proper, given the deceased’s age, notional income, future prospects, personal-expense deduction, and multiplier.

It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Tribunal’s award dated 21 February 2020; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.