The insurer is not liable for compensation if the claimant is a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the 3^rd respondent insurer in O.P.(MV) No.58 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal, challenging the liability imposed by the tribunal on the appellant in the impugned award dated 14/11/2017. The respondents herein were the claimant and respondents 1 and 2 before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 22.08.2009, she purchased a small load of split cashew nuts and hired an Ape Cargo bearing Registration No. KL-16D/1633 for transporting the same. The vehicle was driven by the 2ndrespondent in a rash and negligent manner. The claimant also accompanied the goods in the vehicle. While en route, the vehicle toppled over and as a result of the accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹2,02,500/-, which was limited to ₹2,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 to 3 were the registered owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle, respectively. The first respondent filed a written statement contending that the 2^nd respondent had a valid driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. The second respondent filed a written statement denying his liability. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and alleged violations of policy conditions. It was further contended that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle and the insurer was not liable to pay the amount award. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A11 and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹82,650/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 3rd respondent, being the insurer and further reimburse from the first respondent; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 12% per annum was also awarded. Challenging the liability to pay the award amount, the insurer has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the injured was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle. The tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the award amount though it was found that the injured was neither the owner of the goods nor the representative of the owner of the goods. The learned standing counsel for the appellant insured relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Balu Krishna Chavan v. The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. &

Others [ 2023 KHC 5347 ].

6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, a specific contention was raised in the written statement that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle, and though the tribunal found that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger, it allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the claimant had hired the vehicle for transporting her goods and that she was the owner of the goods. Hence, she cannot be treated as a gratuitous passenger. It was further argued that even if it is found that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation in the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sunita & Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others [ 2025 KHC 7404 ].

7. I have considered the rival contentions raise