The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant as he was not a gratuitous passenger but an owner/authorized representative of the goods, as per the legal framework under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 08.04.2013. (“impugned award”) passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

2. Facts borne out of the records are that on 03.06.2010., respondent No. 1 was going to Panipat in the cabin of Tempo Swaraj Mazda bearing No. HR-67-3182, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed. The driver/respondent No. 2 was warned by respondent No. 1 and the co-passenger, not to drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, however, the driver continued driving in rash and negligent manner. When they reached Singhu Border, the driver lost control of the vehicle and hit against a tree. The co-passenger died on the spot and respondent No. 1 sustained grievous injuries. Respondent No. 1 remained in hospital from 03.06.2010. to 05.06.2010. and again from 06.06.2010. to 15.06.2010.. During the course of treatment, the right leg of respondent No. 1 was amputated below knee. Being severally effected physically, mentally and financially by the accident, respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs. 15 lacs.

3. By way of the impugned Award dated 08.04.2013., the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 9,05,054/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount and directed the Insurance Company to pay the entire awarded amount within a period of one month. The learned Claims Tribunal granted the compensation under the following heads:—

4. Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company contended that the Impugned order is perverse and has been passed without appreciating the principles of law, documents and the evidence on record. Learned counsel further contended that the deceased and respondent No. 1 were unauthorized/gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle and as such they are not covered under the insurance policy. He further submitted that respondent No. 1 and other co-occupants were carrying personal belongings and tools and as per section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the same does not fall under the definition of ‘Goods’, as such they cannot be considered to be either owner of the goods or authorized representative, thus the respondent was not liable to be paid any compensation by the appellant, thereby entitling the appellant for grant of recovery rights. He further submitted that no documentary proof was brought on record by respondent No. 1 to show his employment. As such applying minimum wages for calculation of compensation and also granting 30% increase towards future prospects under the head ‘Loss of Income’ and ‘Loss of Future Income’ is perverse and arbitrary. He further submitted that as per disability certificate, respondent no. 1 suffered 60% permanent disability, and 50% functional disability, however, he failed to show that due to this disability his earning capacity got affected and has suffered loss of future income, therefore no such compensation could be awarded in the absence of evidence. He further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in calculating the loss of earning capacity taking 50% as functional disability and in the absence of any medical and documentary evidence, the functional disability of respondent no. 1 should be taken to be 30% instead of 50%, if any, for calculating the l