Goods Autorickshaw Carrying Injured Man’s Bakery Goods: Karnataka HC Makes Insurer Pay Compensation First

The claimant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for injuries sustained when an autorickshaw in which he was travelling capsized.

The insurer appealed the Tribunal’s award, challenging its liability on the ground that the claimant had travelled in the cabin of a goods autorickshaw whose registered seating capacity was one, including the driver.

The record also showed that the autorickshaw was carrying bakery goods belonging to the claimant for sale.

The Tribunal had held the owner and insurer jointly and severally liable.

Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, an injured claimant may seek compensation for injuries caused by the use of a motor vehicle.

The Court considered United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh K.K., (2008) 12 SCC 657, relied on by the insurer, and Kaminiben v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SLP (C) No. 21802/2023, decided 11 February 2026.

The latter decision was understood to hold that where the dominant purpose of hiring a vehicle is carrying goods rather than travelling, the insurer must satisfy the compensation award in the first instance, with liberty to recover from the owner, even where the injured person is a gratuitous passenger.

The Court accepted that the claimant travelled in the autorickshaw’s cabin and that the vehicle’s seating capacity was one, including the driver; the policy recorded a seating capacity of zero, while the B-register extract recorded one.

It considered this travel a breach of policy conditions.

However, the FIR also recorded that the vehicle was carrying the claimant’s bakery goods for sale.

Applying Kaminiben, the Court concluded that the goods-carrying purpose supported requiring the insurer to pay the claimant first, while preserving a right of recovery against the owner.

It directed that the amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal, that the balance be deposited within six weeks, and that the entire compensation be released to the claimant upon deposit.

The operative order’s recovery clause says “from insurer,” although the preceding reasoning and paragraph 13 say recovery is from the owner; this appears to be an internal inconsistency in the judgment.