Insurer remains liable for the death of a goods owner’s representative travelling in the goods vehicle.

On 13 May 2006, Ranchhodbhai Laxmanbhai was travelling in truck bearing registration No. GJ-3-U-5770 when it overturned near Kaniya Patiya on the Dharmaj–Tarapur Road due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver.

He sustained fatal injuries and died.

His widow, mother and three children filed a motor accident claim petition.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar at Limbdi, awarded ₹5,61,400 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company challenged the award, contending that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger whose risk was not covered under the policy and that he was not an employee of the truck owner.

The claimants maintained that he was travelling as the representative of the owner of the goods, namely wheat, and sought enhancement of compensation under the conventional heads.

The Tribunal had relied on the FIR, the accident panchnama, the deposition of the RTO Officer and Rule 122 in fastening liability on the Insurance Company.

1. Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger or was travelling in the truck as the representative of the owner of the goods, such that his risk was covered under the insurance policy and the Insurance Company was liable to satisfy the award?

2. Whether the claimants could seek enhancement of compensation in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, despite not filing an independent appeal or cross-objection?

3. Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses required enhancement in order to constitute just compensation?

The Court applied Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the court-referred Rule 122 concerning coverage of the owner of goods or the owner’s representative travelling in a goods vehicle.

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for the standardized amounts applicable to conventional heads, including loss of estate and funeral expenses.

It applied Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, holding that each eligible claimant may receive compensation for loss of consortium.

It further relied on Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate v. Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav, (2021) 16 SCC 467, for the principle that a court should adopt a non-hypertechnical approach and may award just compensation, including enhancement, even in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

The Court rejected the Insurance Company’s contention that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger.

The FIR established that he was travelling as the representative of the owner of the goods, while the panchnama recorded the presence of wheat bags at the accident site.

The RTO Officer’s evidence also supported coverage of the owner of the goods or the owner’s representative under the policy.

Applying Section 147 and Rule 122, the Court held that the Tribunal correctly fastened liability on the Insurance Company.

The Court also held that the absence of an independent appeal or cross-objection did not prevent the claimants from seeking just compensation in the Insurance Company’s appeal, relying on Surekha.

Applying Pranay Sethi, it enhanced loss of estate and funeral expenses to ₹18,150 each.

Applying Magma, it awarded consortium to all five legal representatives—widow, mother and three children—at ₹48,400 each, totalling ₹2,42,000.

The total compensation was consequently recalculated at ₹7,69,700, against the Tribunal’s award of ₹5,61,400.

The Insurance Company remained liable to satisfy the award because the deceased was travelling as the representative of the owner of the goods and was covered under the policy.

The total compensation was enhanced to ₹7,69,700, resulting in an additional amount of ₹2,08,300, carrying interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional compensation and accrued interest within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimants subject to verification and deduction of any deficit court fees.