An insurance company is liable to pay compensation to a gratuitous passenger under the principle of 'pay and recover' as per Section 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even in cases of fundamental breach of policy conditions, provided no fraud or collusion is established.

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01-10-2012 IN M.V.C.NO.149/2011 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER M.A.C.T., KHANAPUR IMPOSING JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY UPON BOTH THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 AND A REASONABLE COMPENSATION MAY BE AWARDED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act) paying for modifying the judgment and award dated 01.10.2012 in MVC No.149/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Member M.A.C.T., Khanapur, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) saddling joint and several liability upon both respondents No.1 and 2 and praying for awarding of reasonable compensation.

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before Tribunal for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The claimant has filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, praying for compensation of ₹.8,00,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that had taken place on 07.11.2010 at 05.30 p.m. on M. K. Hubli-Parishwad Road involving truck bearing Reg.No.KA-23/5632. It is stated in the claim petition that due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries and unable to work as he was doing earlier. Hence, prayed for compensation under different heads.

4. On behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as P.W.1 apart from examining a witness as P.W.2 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.16 before the Tribunal and closed his side. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined apart from marking Ex.R.1-insurance policy.

5. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation to claimant under the following heads:

6. Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

7. The contention of claimant is that he was working as Hamali (labourer) in a truck bearing No.KA 23/5632 and the truck belonged to respondent No.1. On 07.11.2010 after completion of the work, when truck was returning from M.K. Hubli to Devalatti, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the truck, it hit on the road side tree and thereby caused the accident. Due to the said accident, claimant has sustained grievous injuries.

8. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part and dismissed the same against respondent No.2 holding that the claimant was gratuitous passenger in truck and thus the owner and driver of the truck have violated the terms and conditions of the policy and thus the insurer is not liable to pay compensation.

9. Learned counsel for appellant/claimant would submit that even though claimant was held to be a gratuitous passenger, the insurance company was ordered to pay compensation to the claimant and to recover it from the owner. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9