A passenger accompanying goods in a goods vehicle is not gratuitous; insurers bear joint and several liability.

On 15.08.2007, the deceased, Adremanbhai Arabbhai Jat, was travelling in auto-rickshaw No. GJ-12-W-5559 along with grass intended for his animals when tractor No. RJ-21-RA-6393, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, collided with the auto-rickshaw. The deceased suffered grievous injuries, including damage to his right kidney, which was surgically removed, and subsequently died during treatment.

The claim petition was contested by the insurer, while the other opponents appeared but did not file written statements.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.98,483/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The claimant appealed, challenging the finding on negligence, the quantum of compensation, and the exoneration of the auto-rickshaw’s insurer.

1. Whether the accident resulted from the sole negligence of the tractor driver or from the contributory negligence of both the tractor and auto-rickshaw drivers, and whether the deceased passenger could be attributed any negligence?

2. Whether compensation was payable for the permanent loss of the deceased’s right kidney, in addition to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal?

3. Whether the deceased, who was travelling in a goods auto-rickshaw along with grass, was a gratuitous passenger and whether the auto-rickshaw’s insurer could be exonerated?

4. Whether the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation with interest and, if so, against whom the award was enforceable?

The Court applied the doctrine of composite negligence, relying on Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273, under which a claimant who is not himself negligent may recover the entire compensation from any one of the joint tortfeasors because their liability is joint and several.

It also relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kahlon, (2022) 13 SCC 494, for the principle that a motor accident compensation claim does not abate merely because the original claimant dies during the pendency of the proceedings.

On the question of liability for a person travelling in a goods vehicle, the Court followed Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1650, holding that a person accompanying goods connected with his occupation or purpose cannot automatically be treated as a gratuitous passenger, particularly where the insurer fails to disprove that circumstance.

Compensation was assessed on the principle of just, fair and reasonable compensation for the permanent loss of a vital organ.

The FIR stated that the tractor was overtaking the auto-rickshaw and that the rear portion of its trailer struck the right side of the auto-rickshaw; the scene panchnama also recorded damage to the auto-rickshaw’s right side.

The Court inferred that the tractor driver was negligent in attempting the overtaking manoeuvre, while the auto-rickshaw driver also failed to maintain sufficient space for safe overtaking. Accordingly, both drivers were held contributorily negligent. However, the deceased was merely a passenger accompanying grass and had no role in driving or controlling either vehicle; hence, no negligence could be attributed to him. The claim therefore fell within composite negligence, entitling him to recover the entire compensation from any joint tortfeasor.

The medical record established that the deceased’s right kidney had become non-functional and was surgically removed following the accident.

Since the Tribunal had failed to compensate this permanent loss, the High Court awarded Rs.5,00,000/- under the head of loss of the right kidney, while leaving the unchallenged amounts for treatment, nourishment and miscellaneous expenses, and pain and suffering undisturbed.

The Court further accepted the evidence that the deceased was travelling with grass intended for his animals. Applying Brij Bihari Gupta, it held that he could not be classified as a gratuitous passenger merely because the vehicle was a goods vehicle. The insurer had not produced evidence sufficient to discredit the claimant’s version or establish that no goods were being carried.

The Court awarded an additional Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of the right kidney, increasing the compensation reflected in the computation table from Rs.98,483/- to Rs.5,98,483/-.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

All respondents, including the insurers, were held jointly and severally liable to deposit the awarded compensation before the Tribunal within six weeks; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount with interest after verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.

No order as to costs was made.