Driving Licence Sufficient To Treat Deceased As Skilled Heavy Vehicle Driver; No Interference With MACT Compensation: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), observing that the driving license was enough to prove that deceased was duly qualified to be treated as a skilled worker in the category of heavy vehicle driver.

Justice Sudeepti Sharma noted, "a perusal of the record shows that the driving licence of the deceased was produced... The said licence clearly reflects that the deceased was authorised to drive heavy and medium goods vehicles. Thus, the deceased was duly qualified to be treated as a skilled worker in the category of heavy vehicle driver.

The appeal was filed against the MACT award dated 10 July 2017, passed in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby compensation of ₹19.60 lakh along with interest at 7.5% per annum was awarded to the claimants. The insurer questioned the assessment of the deceased's income, contending that the amount awarded was excessive.

The appellant–Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at ₹15,680, relying on a wage notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, applicable to skilled labour/heavy vehicle drivers. It was contended that instead, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the minimum wages for skilled labour applicable across the State of Haryana, which were substantially lower.

Opposing the appeal, counsel for the claimant submitted that the compensation awarded was, in fact, inadequate. It was pointed out that the claimants had already filed a separate appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. On this ground, dismissal of the insurer's appeal was sought.

After hearing the submissions, the High Court reiterated the settled principle governing appellate jurisdiction, observing that an appellate court cannot substitute its own view merely because an alternative view is possible. Interference is warranted only when findings suffer from perversity, illegality, or material irregularity.

Justice Sharma noted that the driving licence of the deceased clearly authorised him to drive heavy and medium goods vehicles, establishing that he was a skilled worker. The Court found no material on record to show that the wage rates notified by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, were inapplicable to the deceased.

The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. & Ors., 2024 INSC 816, wherein it was held that appellate courts should not interfere with MACT findings unless they are vitiated by perversity or illegality. The Supreme Court had further clarified that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, district-level wage notifications could not be disregarded merely because State-level minimum wages were available.

Applying the said principles, the High Court uheld that the Tribunal's decision.

"There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the wage rates notified by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, were not applicable to the deceased. In the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, the learned Tribunal was justified in relying upon the said notification while determining the income of the deceased. The approach adopted by the Tribunal cannot be said to be arbitrary or erroneous," said the Court.

Mr. Vishavjeet Bedi, Advocate for the appellant

Mr. Harinder Singh Sandhu, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. VIMAL KAUR AND ORS

Click here to read order