Facts
The Appellant-Insurance Company challenged two separate awards dated 24.12.2016 passed by the MACT, Rajouri, which granted compensation to Pritam Singh and Romesh Chander.
Source reference: p. 2, para 2The claimants alleged they were walking near Khandli Bridge on 19.03.2012 when a Tractor (JK11/0709) hit them from behind due to the driver's negligence, causing permanent disabilities.
Source reference: p. 2-3, para 4; p. 10, para 15The insurer contested liability, arguing that the claimants were actually "gratuitous passengers" on the tractor—which had a seating capacity for only the driver—and thus fell outside the scope of the insurance policy.
Source reference: p. 3, para 5The insurer relied on an investigator's report and the FIR/chargesheet to claim the victims were on the vehicle, not pedestrians.
Source reference: p. 4, para 6Issues
Whether the claimants were "gratuitous passengers" on the offending tractor or third-party pedestrians at the time of the accident, and consequently, whether the insurer is liable to satisfy the award.
Source reference: p. 1, para 1; p. 11, para 17Law Applied
The court applied the principle that an insurer is generally not liable for injuries to gratuitous passengers in a commercial vehicle or tractor unless specifically covered.
Source reference: p. 5-6, para 10It relied on *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari* (2021 ACJ 2558), which establishes that evidence recorded before a Tribunal carries more weight than the contents of an FIR if the two are contradictory.
Source reference: p. 6, para 11Furthermore, under the "pay and recover" principle affirmed in *Akula Narayana v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.* (2025 INSC 1301) and *Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi* (2023 LiveLaw SC 531), the standard of proof in claim petitions is the "preponderance of probabilities" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt."
Source reference: p. 7-9, paras 12-13Reasoning
The Court examined the FIR and chargesheet and found that neither document explicitly named the claimants as passengers on the tractor; they only noted that "some people" were injured.
Source reference: p. 9-10, para 14Conversely, the claimants provided consistent oral testimony that they were pedestrians hit from behind, which was supported by the fact that the Investigating Officer (IO) admitted in cross-examination that there was no evidence proving they were on the vehicle.
Source reference: p. 10, para 15Applying *Chamundeswari*, the Court prioritized the substantive evidence and testimonies recorded during the Tribunal proceedings over the vague assertions in the police reports.
Source reference: p. 11, para 17The Court concluded that the insurer failed to prove the "gratuitous passenger" defense, as the facts favored the claimants' status as third-party pedestrians.
Source reference: p. 11-12, para 18Holding
The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Tribunal’s awards, holding that the claimants were not gratuitous passengers.
The Insurance Company was held liable under its contractual obligation to satisfy the vicarious and tortious liability of the insured.
Source reference: p. 12, para 18The Court ordered the release of the deposited compensation in favor of the claimants after proper verification.
Source reference: p. 12, para 20Original Court PDF
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Romesh Chander & Ors. (c/w Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pritam Singh & Ors.) [2026:JKLHC-JMU:763]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in