Truck Owner Admitted Dead Son Rode As Loader; Karnataka HC Upholds Insurer’s Liability For ₹3.52 Lakh Compensation Award

Manjunath @ Madhu died from injuries sustained in a road accident while travelling in lorry No. KA-46-450.

His mother and brothers brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that he was travelling as a loader employed in the lorry.

The Tribunal awarded them Rs. 3,52,000, with interest at 6% per annum, and held the insurer liable.

The insurer appealed, disputing liability on the ground that Manjunath was not an employee and that the policy did not cover his risk.

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

The Court treated a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as not being substantive evidence by itself.

It also applied the principle that a Tribunal’s finding should not be reversed merely because another view is possible, where the finding has a basis in the record and was reached after considering the material.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court considered whether the evidence supported the Tribunal’s finding that Manjunath was travelling as an employee.

Although a police-investigation statement attributed to another person described Manjunath as the driver’s friend, that statement was recorded under Section 161 CrPC, was not substantive evidence by itself, and had not been put to the relevant witness in cross-examination.

The Court also noted the owner’s specific pleading that Manjunath was travelling as a loader, alongside the claimants’ consistent account.

It therefore found some material supporting the Tribunal’s conclusion and declined to disturb it merely because another view was possible.

The appeal was dismissed; the amount in deposit was ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal, and the insurer was directed to deposit any balance within six weeks.

The compensation was ordered to be released to the claimants on deposit.