Insurance companies can be directed to satisfy awarded sums for gratuitous passengers and seek recovery from insured parties.

JUDGMENT

Appellant insurance company who is the 3^rd respondent in OP(MV) No.1446/2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] has preferred this appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal, on the ground that insurance policy for the offending vehicle was an ‘Act only policy’ and therefore, the victim Sreejith who was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle is not covered under said policy and the insurance company is not liable to pay the award amount.

2. For the sake of convenience parties in this appeal shall be referred to as claimants and respondents as per their rank in the O.P(MV).

3. Claimants filed the OP seeking compensation for the death of victim Sreejith stating that on 20.11.2005 at 1 a.m while victim Sreejith, who is the son of the 1^st claimant and the brother of the 2^nd claimant, was accompanying the goods of his employer in a tempo van bearing registration No.KL-7A-4842 driven by the 1^st respondent in the O.P, and when it reached near Chandiroor Thaykavu, it hit on a lorry bearing registration No.KL-8Z/276 driven by the 4^th respondent. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1 and R4. In the accident, the victim Sreejith sustained grievous injuries and though he was taken to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. R1 to R3 are the driver, owner and insurer of the tempo van and R4 to R6 are the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.KL-8Z/276.

4. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver of tempo van. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹4,65,000/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 14.12.2007 till the date of realisation, with a direction to R3 to deposit the amount and with a further direction that, after payment, 3^rd respondent is entitled to recover the amount from R1 and R2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

5. According to R3/appellant insurance company they are not liable to pay the award amount since the policy was an ‘Act only policy’ and the victim Sreejith was a gratuitous passenger.

6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P and the counsel for claimants contended that the victim was accompanying the goods of his employee and therefore the insurance company cannot be exonerated from the liability.

7. Heard both sides. Records perused.

8. It is an undisputed fact that the victim Sreejith met with a motor vehicle accident on 20.11.2005 and he died due to the injuries sustained in the accident.

9. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned judgment of the learned tribunal directing R3 insurance company to deposit the award amount and then to recover the amount from R1 and R2 in the OP based on the principle of “pay and recover”, needs any interference by this Court.

10. The evidence on record would show that the victim was travelling in the tempo van bearing registration No.KL-7A-4842 and he was accompanying the goods carried in it.

11. In Kaminiben & Ors v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors. reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 174, after referring to its earlier decisions in Manuara Khatun & Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. [ 2017 (4) SCC 796 ]; National Insurance Company Limited v.

Saju P. Paul & Another [ 2013 (2) SCC 41 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, the insurance company is liable to pay the amount and recover the same from the insured. It was a case wherein the deceased was travelling in a tempo hired on the occasion of a Gane