Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a motor accident compensation claim. The claimants, who are the parents and minor sister of the deceased Velmurugan, filed MCOP No.220 of 2023 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puducherry, seeking compensation for his death. The deceased was a pillion rider on a Pulsar motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY 01 CB 0607, ridden by his friend Pavadairayan, when a tractor bearing Registration No.TN 70 AD 1271, driven rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle on 13.02.2023 at about 9.00 p.m. at Tenkodipakkam near Tindivanam-Puducherry road. The deceased died due to injuries. The claimants averred that he worked as a plumber earning Rs.1,000 per day. The appellant Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. was the insurer of the tractor. Before the Tribunal, the insurance company contended that the accident was caused by the negligence of the motorcyclist, that the deceased was not wearing a helmet, and that the tractor driver did not possess a valid driving licence. The Tribunal examined PW1 and PW2, marked Exs.P1 to P14, and considered RW1 without any documents. It found from the final report Ex.P13 and Form AIR Ex.P11 that the accident was caused by the tractor driver's rash and negligent driving, that the tractor driver lacked a valid licence as per Ex.P12, and that the deceased was a third party. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.26,86,584 with a direction to the insurer to pay and recover from the owner. Aggrieved, the insurer filed the present appeal challenging the award on grounds of contributory negligence and the deletion of pay and recover provisions by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019. The High Court considered the submissions. It held that proceedings before the Tribunal are summary and decided on preponderance of probabilities; in the absence of rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal's finding on negligence was not perverse. On contributory negligence, the Court followed M.Nithya and Ors. v. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, 2025 Supreme (SC) 1508, and held that bald assertions in the counter affidavit cannot be taken into account for fixing contributory negligence when no issue was framed and no evidence led. On pay and recover, the Court relied on the Division Bench decision in The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard, Thanjavur v. Mariyapushpam and Others, which declared that the deletion of the proviso to Section 149(4) and Section 149(5) did not obliterate the insurer's statutory duty under Section 150(1) to pay third-party claims, and if the insurer establishes a defence under Section 150(2), it can recover from the insured. Accordingly, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's award and rejected the insurer's contentions. The insurer remains liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and may recover the amount from the owner of the tractor.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Non-wearing of Helmet - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Tribunal did not frame an issue on contributory negligence; insurance company made only bald assertion in counter affidavit and led no evidence; appellate court cannot consider argument to reduce compensation - Held that non-wearing of helmet cannot be treated as contributory negligence absent framed issue and evidence (Para 12). B) Motor Accident Claims - Pay and Recover - Effect of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 deletion of proviso to Section 149(4) and (5) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 149, 150 - Deletion does not obliterate statutory duty of insurer to pay third-party claims under Section 150(1); insurer's duty is statutory; if insurer establishes defence under Section 150(2), it can recover from insured after satisfying award - Held pay and recover remains valid after 2019 amendment (Para 14). C) Motor Accident Claims - Liability for Policy Breach - Driver Lacking Valid Driving Licence - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 150 - Deceased is a third party; accident caused solely by tractor driver's rashness; driving without licence is policy violation, but insurer still liable to pay third-party compensation and may recover from owner - Held insurer cannot avoid liability to third party (Paras 11, 13). D) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence Finding - Preponderance of Probabilities - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Tribunal proceedings are summary; no rebuttal evidence from insurer; findings based on FIR, final report, eyewitness and Form AIR not perverse - Held Tribunal's conclusion that tractor driver was negligent is upheld (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in directing pay and recover despite the 2019 amendment omitting pay and recovery; whether non-wearing of helmet by deceased amounted to contributory negligence; whether insurer liable to third party when tractor driver lacked valid driving licence
Final Decision
The High Court rejected the appellant insurance company's contentions and affirmed the Tribunal's finding of negligence and its pay and recover direction. The insurer remains liable to pay compensation to the claimants and may recover the amount from the owner of the tractor. The appeal was dismissed.
Law Points
- Motor accident claims are decided on preponderance of probabilities
- non-wearing of helmet cannot be treated as contributory negligence without framed issue and evidence
- deletion of pay and recover provisions under Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act
- 2019 does not extinguish insurer's statutory liability to third party under Section 150(1)
- if insurer establishes defence under Section 150(2)
- it can recover from insured after satisfying award
- driving without valid licence is violation of policy but third-party rights unaffected
