An insurer exonerated for carrying a gratuitous passenger may still be directed to pay and recover from the vehicle owner.

The deceased, Jivanbhai, died after a truck carrying him and household goods overturned following a collision with another truck.

His dependants brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,45,968 with 9% annual interest and directed certain opponents to pay jointly and severally.

The insurer of the truck in which the deceased was travelling appealed, arguing that he was an uninsured gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle.

The claimants sought enhanced compensation under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC without filing cross-objections.

Whether the insurer could be held liable for a deceased passenger travelling in a goods vehicle contrary to the policy terms, and, if not, whether it should be directed to pay first and recover from the vehicle owner.

Whether the Court could enhance compensation without cross-objections and, if so, what amount constituted just compensation.

Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act governs the compulsory insurance cover required for third-party risks; a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle outside the policy’s coverage may not be covered by the insurer.

However, applying the “pay and recover” principle, including the authorities discussed in Saju P. Paul and Manuara Khatun, an insurer may be directed to satisfy the award first and recover the amount from the insured in the same proceedings.

Under Section 168 of the Act, the Court must determine just compensation; Chandra Mani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain supports the Court’s power to do so even without cross-objections.

The assessment of compensation also followed the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi on future prospects and conventional heads, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur on consortium.

The Court found that the claimants had not proved that the goods in the truck belonged to the deceased and that the policy and registration documents showed that the truck was not authorised or insured to carry passengers.

It therefore upheld the insurer’s exoneration from ultimate liability, but directed it to pay the award first and recover from the owner, applying the cited “pay and recover” authorities.

On compensation, the Court held that it could assess just compensation despite the absence of cross-objections.

It used a monthly salary of Rs. 2,232, added 30% for future prospects, deducted one-quarter for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 15.

It also awarded consortium to six claimants and amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court assessed total compensation at Rs. 7,18,416, including the Tribunal’s existing award of Rs. 2,45,968, and awarded an additional Rs. 4,72,448 with 9% annual interest from the claim-petition date until realisation.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimants after verification and deduction of any unpaid court fees.