A passenger is not a gratuitous passenger if they are engaged as an employee for the conveyance of goods in a vehicle for which a specific premium for worker liability has been paid, and such status is supported by the vehicle owner's admissions and evidence of employment duties.

JUDGMENT :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. The appellants/claimants-father and mother of the deceased in an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act) had sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,41,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs forty one thousand) only, on account of the accidental death of their son in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.04.2023.

2. The question which arose for consideration before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the learned Tribunal) was whether the deceased was a workman covered by the insurance policy or a gratuitous passenger not entitled to compensation? Both were questions of fact.

3. The learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellants (claimants) who were the parents of the deceased on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the accident vehicle and not a workman or a helper in the accident vehicle.

4. The claimants had asserted that the deceased was working as a daily wage labor of the accident vehicle and on the relevant day of the accident he was travelling from Rorathang to Bering to unload sand of Ms. Durga Mishra when the accident occurred due to which both the deceased and his brother died.

5. The Insurance Company (respondent no.1) disputed the claim made by the claimants by filing its written objection and denying the assertion of the claimants that the deceased was a workman working as a daily laborer in the accident vehicle. The Insurance Company asserted that the deceased and the driver of the accident vehicle were from the same village and therefore, the deceased had taken a lift in the accident vehicle. The Insurance Company supported this claim by filing the Motor TP Claims Investigation Report (exhibit-R1) made by Binud Arjel- the Insurance Investigator who opined that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in his report.

6. The owner of the accident vehicle (respondent no.2) in his written objection admitted that he had required five bags of sand to repair the drain of his house which were loaded in the accident vehicle along with the sand of Mr. Durga Mishra on the relevant day; the deceased boarded the accident vehicle to unload the said five bags of sand belonging to the owner but unfortunately before unloading the sand, the accident vehicle met with an accident.

7. In the insurance policy it is seen that the owner has paid an additional premium for insuring his liability to workmen greater than six. The insurance policy which is dated 04.02.2023 does not define the word “workmen”. During the course of the hearing it was suggested that the word “workmen” as mentioned in the insurance policy would have the same meaning as was defined in Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. By section 4 of the Workmen Compensation (Amendment) Act, 2009 nomenclature of the Act has been amended by substituting the word “Employee’s” for the word “Workmen’s” w.e.f. 18.01.2010 and now the Act stands as the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 defines the word “Employee” in section 2(dd) to include a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle. Thus, the deceased would be covered by the definition of an “Employee” as afore