Insurer must indemnify goods-vehicle occupants when they are goods owners or policy-covered loaders.

On 8 June 2007, Prabhubhai Haribhai Patel, Pankajbhai Kanjibhai Patel and Haribhai Dayalbhai Patel were travelling in an Eicher truck bearing registration No. GJ-3-U-9420. The truck was allegedly driven rashly and negligently, lost control and overturned. Prabhubhai died at the spot, while Pankajbhai and Haribhai sustained grievous injuries

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural), partly allowed the three claim petitions and awarded ₹7,82,000 in MACP No. 1735/2008, ₹3,86,000 in MACP No. 1736/2008 and ₹1,44,440 in MACP No. 1737/2008, with interest at 9% per annum from the respective dates of filing

The claimants filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation, while the insurer filed appeals disputing its liability on the ground that the deceased and injured claimants were gratuitous or unauthorised passengers in the goods vehicle

The High Court considered the appeals together because they arose from the same accident and involved common questions of law and fact

1. Whether the compensation awarded for the death of Prabhubhai Haribhai Patel and the injuries suffered by Pankajbhai Kanjibhai Patel and Haribhai Dayalbhai Patel required enhancement on account of future prospects, functional disability, loss of income and other conventional heads?

2. Whether the insurer was liable to satisfy the awards, or whether the deceased and injured claimants were unauthorised/gratuitous passengers whose risks were not covered under the insurance policy?

3. Whether the father of the deceased, who died during the pendency of the claim proceedings, was entitled to compensation for loss of consortium?

The Court applied Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, holding that the risk of persons travelling in a goods vehicle as owners of the goods is covered by the statutory liability of the insurer, and that a person travelling for loading and unloading may also be covered where the policy extends such coverage

For computation of compensation, the Court applied the multiplier principles in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, including the multiplier applicable according to the claimant’s age

It applied the future-prospects principles governing self-employed persons, adding 25% for the deceased aged 49 and the injured claimant aged 45, and 40% for the injured claimant aged 20

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, for the amounts payable under loss of estate and funeral expenses

It further relied on Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 166, for the principle that dependency and entitlement are assessed with reference to the circumstances existing when the claim petition was filed, thereby entitling all five legal representatives to consortium

The Court enhanced the compensation for Prabhubhai’s death by adding 25% future prospects to the accepted monthly income of ₹6,000, deducting one-fourth for personal expenses, and applying a multiplier of 13, resulting in ₹8,77,500 towards loss of dependency

Since five legal representatives survived the deceased at the time of filing the claim petition, each was held entitled to consortium, aggregating ₹2,42,000; the amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses were recalculated under Pranay Sethi, producing a total compensation of ₹11,55,800 and an additional award of ₹3,73,800

For Pankajbhai, the Court reassessed functional disability from 20% to 25% because of the crush injury to his hand and the physical demands of agricultural work. It added 40% future prospects, applied a multiplier of 18, and awarded ₹4,53,600 for future loss of income.

It also enhanced actual loss of income, pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges and transportation, resulting in total compensation of ₹6,54,600 and an additional amount of ₹2,68,600

For Haribhai, the Court added 25% future prospects to the monthly income of ₹3,000, applied 11% functional disability and a multiplier of 14, and enhanced the amounts for actual loss of income, pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges and transportation.

The total compensation was fixed at ₹1,73,800, resulting in an additional award of ₹29,360

On liability, the Court accepted the claimants’ case that Prabhubhai and Pankajbhai were travelling as owners of the goods and that Haribhai was travelling as a labourer for loading and unloading.

The panchnama showed bags of cumin at the accident site, corroborating the claimants’ version

The insurance policy contained a premium of ₹150 for two non-fare-paying passengers, which covered Haribhai’s risk, while the risks of Prabhubhai and Pankajbhai were covered as owners of goods under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As the insurer led no evidence to establish exclusion of liability, its challenge failed

The compensation was enhanced to ₹11,55,800 for the death claim, ₹6,54,600 for Pankajbhai’s injuries and ₹1,73,800 for Haribhai’s injuries.

The claimants were awarded interest at 9% per annum on the respective additional compensation from the dates of filing of the claim petitions until realization

The insurer was directed to deposit the entire enhanced compensation, along with interest, within six weeks.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amounts to the claimants after verification and deduction of any deficit court fee, and any amount deposited before the High Court Registry was to be transmitted to the Tribunal

The connected civil application for withdrawal/disbursement became infructuous and was disposed of accordingly