Passengers in goods vehicles are typically not covered under mandatory insurance unless authorized as per legal amendments.

Order

07/10/2025

1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) against the award dated 25.09.2003 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behror District Alwar (Rajasthan) (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 97/2000.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/claimant preferred a claim petition seeking compensation for the accident that occurred on 09.03.2000 in which he suffered serious injuries including a fracture, which made him permanently disabled. In the claim petition, it was stated that while he was travelling in vehicle Tata 709 RJ-02-G-3976, a Matador bearing Registration No. DL-1G-7202 collided with it due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Matador. In the claim petition, it was further mentioned that the claimant was escorting the light generator and in that accident, five to six persons died.

The respondents filed the reply to the claim petition controverting the facts of the claim petition. The defendant respondent No. 3, Insurance Company of the Vehicle No. RJ-02-G- 3967, in which the claimant was travelling, preferred a separate reply pleading that the company is not liable to indemnify the owner/driver as the insured vehicle was a goods vehicle and the passengers were being carried without authorisation.

The Tribunal decided five claim petitions preferred by different persons pertaining to the said accident by a common judgement/award dated 25.09.2003.

The Tribunal absolved the Insurance Company from the liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle no. RJ-02-G-3967 and awarded Rs. 26250/- to the appellant/claimant. Being aggrieved against the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant-appellant, this appeal has been preferred.

3. The learned counsel for appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal computed the income of the appellant/claimant as Rs. 60/- per day, being the minimum wages without stating anything about his income. He also submits that it was the duty of the Tribunal to assess the income of claimant/appellant in an objective manner and to not compute the same at the minimum, merely because of inadvertent non-mentioning of his income by him. He further submits that the monthly income of the claimant was about Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month and he was engaged in several activities such as agriculture, marketing of agriculture products, operating of light generator etc., moreover, the claimant was escorting his light generator in the vehicle which was also damaged, and thus, the Insurance Company is liable to compensate him.

The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further submits that the Tribunal did not include the amount of the medical expenses incurred by the appellant/claimant in respect of the bills submitted by him in which his name was not mentioned, and thus, prayed for enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 26250/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

4. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record.

5. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the facts on record, the Court has to examine whether there is any need to interfere with the learned Tribunal’s decision when the appellant/claimant was travelling in the goods vehicle, not for protecting the luggage, but for some other purpose.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur , (2004) 2 SCC 1, observed as under:-

“14. ...Such an amendment was made by Parliament consciously. Having regard to