Insurer liable for helper and authorized representative of goods as non-gratuitous passengers.

The Appellant-Insurance Company challenged a common award dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Claims Tribunal, which awarded compensation of ₹12,81,172 and ₹9,73,379 to the claimants following a fatal motor vehicle accident

The deceased, Rajesh Yadav and Pratap Singh Kawar, were traveling in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident

The Insurance Company contended that the deceased were "gratuitous passengers" not covered by the insurance policy, thereby seeking to set aside the liability fastened upon them

The Respondents (claimants and owner) argued that Rajesh Yadav was a "helper" and Pratap Singh Kawar was an "authorized representative" of the owner of the goods, roles that are covered under the liability of the insurer

The owner of the vehicle, Mahavir Jain, and an eyewitness provided testimony supporting the capacity of the deceased as employees/representatives rather than gratuitous passengers

1. Whether the deceased persons were traveling as "gratuitous passengers" or in the capacity of a "helper" and "authorized representative of the owner of goods"

2. Whether the Claims Tribunal's finding fastening liability on the Insurance Company was perverse or lacked evidentiary support

The Court primarily applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the maintainability and scope of appeals against Tribunal awards

It relied on the principle that the burden of proving a policy breach—specifically the unauthorized carriage of gratuitous passengers—lies on the insurer

The Court further adhered to the principle of appellate review that findings of fact based on oral and documentary evidence (such as the testimony of the vehicle owner and eyewitnesses) should not be disturbed unless they suffer from manifest perversity or illegality

The Court observed that although the Insurance Company pleaded that the deceased were gratuitous passengers, its own witnesses (an RTO officer and an Insurance official) failed to provide any specific testimony to substantiate this claim

Conversely, the owner of the vehicle, Mahavir Jain, testified that Rajesh Yadav was a helper and Pratap Singh Kawar was an authorized representative monitoring the safe delivery of goods

The Court highlighted that the owner remained consistent during cross-examination and the Insurance Company failed to extract any evidence to the contrary

Applying the law to these facts, the Court found that the capacity of the deceased was duly proved by the claimants and the owner, while the insurer failed to meet its burden of proof to establish the "gratuitous passenger" defense

Consequently, the Court held that the Tribunal’s findings were based on a correct appreciation of evidence

It held that the deceased were not gratuitous passengers and, therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the awarded compensation

The Court concluded that the findings were correct findings of fact and did not warrant interference

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs