An insurer cannot deny liability for an occupant permitted under the goods vehicle policy.

On 14 December 2018, Kumar Imtiyaz was travelling in a goods vehicle carrying soybeans when it met with an accident; he sustained serious head and facial injuries and was treated as an inpatient from 14 to 29 December 2018.

He claimed that he worked as a hamal/coolie on the vehicle.

The Tribunal awarded him Rs.11,14,920 and held the owner and insurer jointly and severally liable.

The insurer appealed against liability, contending that Imtiyaz was an unauthorised passenger and that the policy did not cover his risk; Imtiyaz appealed for enhancement.

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required modification.

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing liability on the insurer to pay the compensation.

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

For assessing compensation, the Court applied the multiplier principle in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, including the multiplier of 18 for the claimant’s age.

In the absence of proof of income, it accepted the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s guideline income of Rs.11,750 per month.

On insurance liability, the Court considered the policy terms and the evidence concerning the number of persons permitted to travel in the vehicle.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of 35% whole-body disability, finding the doctor’s 70% assessment insufficiently supported by evidence of continuing treatment, and upheld the notional income, multiplier and future-earning-loss award.

It nevertheless increased compensation for pain and suffering, laid-up-period loss of income, amenities, and diet, attendant and conveyance expenses, based on the injuries and recovery period.

On liability, the insurer’s officer admitted that the policy permitted ten persons to travel in the vehicle; in light of that evidence and the policy, the Court rejected the insurer’s contention that it was not liable.

It enhanced the award from Rs.11,14,920 to Rs.11,83,920, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the petition until payment, excluding the 233-day delay in filing the appeal.

The owner and insurer remained jointly and severally liable, and the insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with accrued interest within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.