Section 147 does not cover goods owners travelling in a goods vehicle’s cargo bed.

The four appeals arose from a common Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award concerning injuries sustained in an accident involving a pickup vehicle on 3 November 2008.

The Tribunal awarded Raju ₹32,270 and Anaklal ₹60,359, with liability imposed jointly and severally on the owner and driver; it awarded Manoj ₹80,699 and Gulab ₹92,532, with liability imposed on the insurer.

Manoj and Gulab were assessed as having 10% and 15% permanent disability, respectively.

All four claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhanced compensation; the liability of the insurer was also contested.

The Court found that Manoj and Gulab had travelled in the vehicle’s cabin with their goods, while Raju and Anaklal had travelled in its cargo portion.

Whether the compensation awarded to each claimant required enhancement in light of the injuries, disability, treatment and other claimed losses

Whether the insurer was liable for the claims of Raju and Anaklal, who travelled in the cargo portion, and whether its existing liability for Manoj and Gulab should remain in place

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

Section 147 governs the scope of compulsory insurance coverage, including coverage in relation to persons travelling in a goods carriage.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma & Others, 2008 ACJ 268; (2008) 1 SCC 423, the Court applied the principle that a person travelling with goods in the cargo portion does not, on that basis alone, receive statutory protection as the owner of goods; the judgment identifies the relevant owner of goods as one travelling in the cabin.

The Court treated the claimants’ location in the vehicle as material to insurer liability.

Because Raju and Anaklal travelled in the cargo portion rather than the cabin, Cholleti Bharatamma applied and the Tribunal’s decision to exonerate the insurer was upheld.

Manoj and Gulab travelled in the cabin with their goods, so the existing imposition of liability on the insurer was maintained.

On quantum, the Court found the Tribunal’s awards to Manoj and Gulab inadequate and reassessed compensation by reference to income, disability, multiplier, future prospects, loss of earnings during treatment, pain and suffering, transport, special diet, treatment and attendant charges.

This produced total awards of ₹1,77,110 for Manoj and ₹2,01,156 for Gulab.

For Raju and Anaklal, the Court considered an additional lump sum of ₹20,000 each just and proper.

Manoj’s total compensation was increased to ₹1,77,110, an enhancement of ₹96,411, and Gulab’s to ₹2,01,156, an enhancement of ₹1,08,624; those enhanced amounts carry 6% interest from the date of filing until realization, with liability remaining on the insurer.

Raju’s compensation was increased to ₹52,270 and Anaklal’s to ₹80,359, each by an additional ₹20,000, payable jointly and severally by the owner and driver; the insurer remained exonerated in their cases.

The remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left intact.