A labourer accompanying agricultural goods is not a gratuitous passenger under agricultural liability cover.

On 14 September 2010, Md. Amsher Ali was travelling in a trailer carrying jute and jute sticks, attached to a tractor, as a labourer engaged in loading and unloading the produce. The tractor struck an electric post, causing a live wire to fall on the vehicles; Ali suffered severe burns and his left leg was amputated below the knee.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang, awarded him Rs. 5,30,000 with 6% annual interest and directed the tractor’s and trailer’s insurers to pay equally. The trailer’s insurer, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., appealed, disputing coverage and its liability.

Whether the claimant, travelling in the trailer as a labourer accompanying agricultural produce for loading and unloading, was covered by the trailer’s “Agricultural Liability Only” policy.

Whether the trailer’s insurer could be held liable where the Tribunal found that the accident was caused by the tractor driver’s negligence and no negligence was attributed to the trailer.

The Court identified no statutory provision or judicial precedent as the basis for its decision. Although the insurer invoked Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arguing that it did not require coverage for a gratuitous passenger in a goods-carrying vehicle, the Court did not separately interpret or apply that section.

The Court’s reasoning turned on the policy’s agricultural-liability coverage and the factual distinction between a gratuitous passenger and a labourer whose presence was connected with the agricultural use of the vehicle: a labourer accompanying agricultural produce for loading and unloading was not, on these facts, a gratuitous passenger and was covered by the policy.

The evidence supported the Tribunal’s finding that Ali was travelling with the jute and jute sticks as a labourer engaged in loading and unloading, and that he was not a gratuitous passenger.

The Court therefore rejected the insurer’s contention that the absence of a premium for passenger coverage excluded liability, reasoning that Ali’s presence was connected with the trailer’s agricultural use. Although the tractor driver’s negligence caused the accident, that did not resolve the separate question of whether Ali’s risk was covered by the trailer’s policy. The insurer failed to show that the Tribunal’s coverage finding was perverse or legally erroneous.

It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Tribunal’s award; any statutory deposit was ordered to be returned, and the Tribunal record was directed to be sent back.