Oral Evidence Prevails Over Contradictory Police Reports in Determining Liability for Deceased Workers in Goods Vehicles

On June 3, 2010, the deceased, Mankiben, was traveling as a laborer in a truck [registration No. GJ-7-T-7687] when the driver applied sudden brakes, causing aluminum bars to fall on her, leading to her death

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Chhotaudepur, awarded Rs. 3,10,000/- but exonerated the Insurance Company (Respondent No. 3), ruling that the deceased was a "gratuitous passenger" based on the FIR

The claimants appealed for enhancement of compensation and to challenge the exoneration of the insurer

1. Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income and future prospects of the deceased for calculating the quantum of compensation

2. Whether the Insurance Company should be held liable to satisfy the award on the grounds that the deceased was traveling as a laborer rather than a gratuitous passenger

The court followed the principles for quantifying compensation established in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), regarding future prospects

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018), regarding the entitlement of all dependents to "loss of consortium"

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari (2021), which holds that oral evidence adduced before a Tribunal carries more weight than contradictory statements in police papers like an FIR

Kaminiben & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2026) regarding the "pay and recover" principle

The Court found the Tribunal’s income assessment of Rs. 2,400/- too low, revising it to the prevailing minimum wage of Rs. 3,880/- for skilled workers in 2010

It added 25% for future prospects and applied a multiplier of 15 based on the deceased's age (40 years)

Regarding liability, the Court noted that while the FIR suggested the deceased was a passenger, the claimant’s oral testimony—which stated she was a loader/unloader—was not effectively rebutted by the insurer

Applying the Chamundeswari precedent, the Court prioritized this oral evidence over the FIR, concluding she was not a gratuitous passenger. However, to balance interests, it invoked the "pay and recover" doctrine, directing the insurer to pay the claimants first and then recover from the vehicle owner/driver

The Court set aside the exoneration of the Insurance Company, directing it to deposit the total enhanced amount within six weeks. The insurer is granted the right to recover the amount from the driver and owner of the truck after satisfying the award