Bombay HC Upholds ₹1.02 Lakh Award To Tomato-Goods Owner Hurt In Tempo Crash, Rejects Insurer’s Gratuitous-Passenger Argument

In brief

The question

Whether the claimant was the owner of the goods being transported and therefore within the coverage contemplated by Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

The court held

The Court dismissed the insurer’s appeal and found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s award

It also directed

It directed that the statutory amount, together with interest, be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursal

01Facts

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directed the insurer and insured of a three-wheeler tempo to pay ₹1,02,000 as compensation for injuries sustained by Respondent No. 1

¶ 2

The claimant’s case was that he and his brother were transporting boxes of tomatoes to the Vashi fruit market when an unidentified tempo struck their vehicle

¶ 5

The insurer appealed, arguing that the claimant had not proved he owned the goods and was therefore a gratuitous passenger; it also disputed the insured vehicle’s liability and relied on a spot panchanama that did not mention tomato boxes

¶ 3

Notice to the respondents was unsuccessful, and the High Court heard the appeal on the insurer’s submissions

¶ 3

02Issues

i.Whether the claimant was the owner of the goods being transported and therefore within the coverage contemplated by Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

¶ 3(a), 6–7

ii.Whether the insured vehicle’s owner and insurer could be held liable when the accident involved an unidentified second vehicle and the claimant had not contributed to the accident

¶ 3(b), 8–9

03Law Applied

Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended in 1994, covers the owner of goods travelling in the vehicle carrying those goods

¶ 7

In a case of composite negligence, an injured claimant who did not contribute to the accident may seek compensation from the owner or insurer of either vehicle; the Court relied on Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2015 (9) SCC 273

¶ 8

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 279 Section 337 Section 338

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the insurer’s challenge to the claimant’s status.

¶ 6–7

Although the spot panchanama made later on the morning of the accident did not record tomato boxes, the Court considered that they might have been removed before the inspection and noted that the insurer had not put the omission to the claimant in cross-examination.

¶ 6–7

It therefore accepted the claimant’s evidence that he owned the goods, bringing him within Section 147’s coverage

¶ 6–7

On negligence, the claimant had not contributed to the accident, and the identity of the other tempo could not be established.

¶ 8–9

Applying the composite-negligence principle in Khenyei, the Court held that the claimant could pursue compensation from the insured vehicle’s owner and insurer; it also found the three-wheeler’s driver responsible for the accident

¶ 8–9