Section 147 covers a goods owner travelling with goods; such occupant is not a gratuitous passenger.

On 19 June 2007, a goods vehicle carrying vegetables overturned after striking a central divider, injuring the claimant and other occupants.

The claimant alleged that he was travelling with his vegetables for supply to a market; the insurer disputed his presence in the vehicle and, alternatively, contended that he was a gratuitous passenger.

The MACT awarded him ₹6,13,760 with interest at 9% per annum, finding that he was travelling as an owner of goods and directing the insurer to indemnify the insured parties.

The insurer appealed, seeking exoneration.

Whether the evidence established that the claimant was travelling in the offending vehicle in connection with the transportation of his vegetables, rather than as a gratuitous passenger.

Whether the insurer was liable to indemnify the insured in respect of the claimant’s injuries.

Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended in 1994, requires coverage for the owner of goods or that person’s authorised representative carried in a goods vehicle; it does not require statutory coverage for a gratuitous passenger in such a vehicle.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2003) 2 SCC 223, confirms that a goods vehicle is not intended to carry passengers and that gratuitous passengers are not covered by a statutory policy.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1, recognises that the 1994 amendment covers the owner of goods or an authorised representative, making the occupant’s connection to the goods or the vehicle’s business purpose material.

The Court also referred to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Kumari & Ors., 2026:DHC:1644, in discussing the distinction between a gratuitous passenger and a person travelling in connection with goods.

The claimant testified that he was travelling with colleagues to supply vegetables, and co-occupant Rajesh’s investigative statement likewise identified the claimant among those travelling with their vegetables.

The MLC recorded that the claimant was initially unknown and unfit to make a statement, explaining why his name did not appear in the FIR or witness list; the medical and discharge records corroborated that he had been injured in the accident.

The insurer produced no evidence rebutting the consistent accounts that the occupants were transporting vegetables.

The Court therefore found that the claimant was not a gratuitous passenger but was travelling in connection with the goods, bringing him within the statutory coverage described under Section 147.

It dismissed the insurer’s appeal and left the MACT award, including the direction that the insurer indemnify the claim, undisturbed.

Pending applications were rendered infructuous, and any statutory deposit was to be refunded only if the deposit order had been complied with.