An insurance company is not liable for compensation if a deceased is an unauthorized passenger in a vehicle with limited seating capacity.

1. Heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.R. Agarwal, learned counsel for the cross - objectors / claimants, as well as Mr. A.M. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant insurance company under S.173 of Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 against the judgment and order dated 7.3.2017 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dhubri in MAC Case No. 88/2015.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.1.2015 at about 7.30 a.m., son of the claimants while travelling in a tractor bearing registration No. AS 17 - B 5189 on the way to Bousmari village, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, son of the claimants fell down from the tractor as a result of which the offending vehicle ran over his body and he sustained grievous injuries on his person and subsequently died on the spot.

4. The factum of the accident has not been challenged in this case. The insurance company is on appeal on the ground that the victim was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger as the vehicle was a tractor which has seating capacity of only one person, i.e., the driver. Hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that claimants' side did not adduce any evidence from the owner of the vehicle to prove that the victim was engaged as a labourer on the said tractor. It is also submitted that the seating capacity of the tractor was only one, i.e., the driver. The exhibited policy amply proves that no premium was paid by the owner covering any risks of the victim. The learned trial court had erred in fastening liability on the insurance company in absence of any risks of the victim being covered in the exhibited policy in question.

6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court had erred in taking age of the victim for selection of multiplier in place of age of the parents. The learned trial court had erred in adding amount for loss of future prospects in this case. It is also submitted that there is no valid and effective driving licence of the driver of the involved tractor and hence, the appellant should not have been saddled with any liability. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, the claimants / respondents have also filed cross - objection, wherein it is stated that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger or unauthorised traveller in the vehicle and he was travelling as a labourer on the alleged tractor from which he fell down and run over by the said tractor and died on the spot. He was a third party only and not a gratuitous passenger as alleged by the appellant insurance company.

8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants / respondents that the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased as only Rs. 3,000, though the proved monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 9,000 at the time of accident vide Exh. 12. The future prospects were also not considered by the learned Tribunal while calculating the quantum of compensation.

9. The learned counsel for the claimants / respondents has also submitted that learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of filial consortium, loss of parental consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

10. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the claimants / respondents has placed reliance on the following case - laws:
(i) Union of India v. Tikka Rajinder