$~29 to 37

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decided on: 19.12.2025

+ MAC.APP. 1159/2014

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant

versus

GEETA & ORS. .....Respondents

+ MAC.APP. 1160/2014

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant

versus

SHEETAL & ORS. .....Respondents

+ MAC.APP. 1162/2014 & CM APPL. 21063/2014

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant

versus

ASHOK KUMAR & ORS .....Respondents

+ MAC.APP. 1164/2014 & CM APPL. 45974/2017

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant

versus

SHASHI & ORS. .....Respondents

+ MAC.APP. 1165/2014

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant

versus

SHASHI & ORS. .....Respondents + MAC.APP. 1166/2014 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant versus SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents + MAC.APP. 1167/2014 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant versus VIMLA @ PHOOLWATI & ORS. .....Respondents + MAC.APP. 1169/2014 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant versus AJAY SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents + MAC.APP. 1170/2014 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant versus PARMILA DEVI & ORS .....Respondents Appearance:

Mr. Pankaj Seth and Ms. Shruti Jain, Advocate for Insurance Company.

Mr. Pankaj Gupta & Mr. Amit Rana, Advocates for claimants.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

1. These nine appeals, by National Insurance Company Limited [“Insurance Company”], are directed against a common award dated 30.09.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”], in nine claims, all arising out of an accident which took place on 12.08.2006.

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND IMPUGNED AWARD

2. The insured vehicle was a Tempo bearing registration No. RJ-31- GA-0683. The accident occurred at a location opposite Azad Hind Gram, Main Rohtak Road, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, when the driver of the insured vehicle is alleged to have been driving at a high speed, and lost control over the vehicle, as a result of which the vehicle turned turtle.

3. The original claimants were the legal representatives of four persons who died in the accident, and five injured victims. In one case [MAC No. 93/2014], the claimant died during the pendency of the claim, and was substituted by his legal heirs. The particulars, with regard to the identity of the victims, the claimants, and the case number are tabulated below:

4. The Tribunal found in favour of the claimants on the question of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the insured vehicle [who was arrayed as respondent No.3 in each of the claims before the Tribunal]. It, therefore, proceeded to assess compensation payable in each case.

5. I have heard Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the claimants.

B. RECOVERY RIGHTS AGAINST THE OWNER OF THE INSURED VEHICLE

6. The principal contention of Mr. Seth, which covers all the nine cases, is that the victims were gratuitous passengers in a goods carrier, and were therefore, not covered by the insurance policy. He submits that, in these circumstances, having regard to the judgments of the Supreme Court inter alia in Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju. P. Paul & Anr., (2013) 2 SCC 41. and Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kr. Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 796., the Tribunal ought to have granted recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the owner of the vehicle.

7. The aforesaid principle has been established in the said decisions, as well as in recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Sunita v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464., Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1650., and Akula Narayana v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2377.

8. Mr. Seth has also referred me to the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 423., in which the Court interpreted Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [“the Act”], to hold that the owner of the goods is only the person who travels in the cabin of the insured vehic