The court upheld the claimant's coverage under the insurance policy, determining that he was an authorized representative of the goods owner, thus entitled to compensation despite the insurer’s claims of non-coverage.

JUDGMENT :

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

1. By way of this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 [“MV Act”], the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. [“the Insurance Company”] challenges an award dated 15.03.2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] in MAC No. 174/2014 [New No. 1399/2016], whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,02,139/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum, in favour of respondent No. 1, who was the claimant before the Tribunal.

A. FACTS

2. The claim arose out of an accident which took place on 22.10.2013 at 11:30 AM, near Kasola Chowk on Delhi-Jaipur Road, National Highway-8. The claimant was travelling in a goods vehicle, i.e. a Canter [bearing registration No. HR-47B-2389] [“the offending vehicle”], which was being driven by Mr. Ramesh Kumar [respondent No. 2 herein]. The claimant’s allegation is that, due to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2, the vehicle hit against a trolla from the back, resulting in the claimant sustaining severe injuries.

3. The claimant was treated at the General Hospital, Rewari, Haryana, and at the Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi. He was hospitalised from 22.10.2013 to 06.11.2013. The claimant’s injury included fracture of both bones in his left forearm, and extreme injuries in his left leg, resulting in above-knee amputation. Before the Tribunal, he placed on record a disability certificate dated 16.02.2015 [EX. PW 1/4], issued by the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi, which assessed his disability at 81% permanent locomotor disability in relation to his left upper limb and left lower limb.

4. The accident resulted in registration of an FIR bearing No. 245/13, dated 22.10.2013 at Police Station Kasola, District Rewari, Haryana. A chargesheet was also filed in the criminal proceedings against respondent No. 2.

5. The claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation. The driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 therein. The Tribunal found that the accident had occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2, and therefore awarded the sum of Rs.30,02,139/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum, in favour of the claimant, under the following heads:

6. Finding no material to show any violation of policy conditions, the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the claim.

7. The Insurance Company is in appeal. The claimant as well as the driver and owner of the offending vehicle have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in this appeal. Although respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were served with notice of this appeal, as recorded in order dated 15.10.2018, and counsel filed vakalatnama on their behalf on 20.03.2018, the order sheets do not reveal any appearance on their behalf.

B. SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

8. I have heard Ms. Prerna Mehta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and Mr. S.N. Parashar, learned counsel for the claimant.

9. Ms. Mehta’s principal contention was that the claimant was travelling in a goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, and was not covered by the terms of the insurance policy at all. She submitted that the Insurance Company should therefore have been absolved of any liability. According to Ms. Mehta, the evidence clearly revealed that the claimant was not travelling as a representative of the owner of the goods, so as to qualify for coverage under the insurance p