The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a person accompanying their goods in a goods carriage to safeguard them is not a gratuitous passenger, and statutory insurance coverage applies. This judgment upholds the settled principle, clarifies the scope of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and serves as binding precedent within Chhattisgarh. Precedents distinguishing between gratuitous passengers and those travelling in connection with goods have been reaffirmed.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/1025/2018 of TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD INDORE (M.P.) Vs JAGRANI TIRKY |
| CNR | CGHC010169422018 |
| Date of Registration | 30-06-2018 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent within Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms award and legal interpretation of the Claims Tribunal |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Compensation / Insurance Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a person travelling in a goods vehicle with their goods for safeguarding purposes is a gratuitous passenger excluded from insurance coverage under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the policy terms. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that a person travelling in a goods carriage with their goods, for the purpose of safeguarding them, cannot be termed a gratuitous passenger. The insurance company bears the onus to prove that a person is an unauthorized or gratuitous passenger to deny coverage under policy and statute. Evidence in the present case established that the deceased travelled to safeguard his goods, fulfilling requirements of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Precedents invoked by the insurer were distinguished due to factual differences, particularly the nature of the deceased’s travel. Accordingly, the insurer cannot avoid liability towards such a claimant. The Tribunal’s award was upheld. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The jurisprudence that insurance companies bear the legal burden to establish breach of policy and unauthorized passenger status; interpretation of Section 147 MV Act that recognizes coverage for owner/representative travelling with goods; rationale that such persons further the interest of goods, not falling within “gratuitous” passenger category. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Deceased boarded a goods vehicle to safeguard his goods, sat in rear, vehicle overturned, resulting in his death; insurance company contested liability, citing him as unauthorized passenger; Tribunal found for claimants, insurance company appealed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially on application of Section 147 to similar facts. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reaffirmed that the insurance company bears the burden to prove, by evidence, that a claimant was an unauthorized or gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle.
- If the claimant was travelling with goods for the purpose of safeguarding them, they are within the protective ambit of Section 147 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- Mere presence in a rear compartment or trolley for safeguarding goods does not exclude a claimant from insurance coverage unless the insurer proves otherwise.
- Precedents cited by insurers must be factually on point to be applicable; otherwise, courts may distinguish them on facts.
- Tribunal findings relating to factual questions, if based on material evidence, will not be easily interfered with by appellate courts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first restated the central legal issue: whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger excluded from insurance coverage, or was travelling in connection with the goods.
- The appellate submissions centered on the claim that the deceased boarded the vehicle midway and was not the owner/representative of the goods, nor covered by the insurance policy or Section 147.
- The Court analyzed the burden of proof, placing it squarely on the insurer to establish by evidence that the passenger was unauthorized.
- The Court examined the oral evidence of claimants and the driver, noting consistency about the deceased travelling with goods to safeguard them.
- The Court reviewed the terms of the policy and the statutory language, holding that a person travelling with goods for safeguarding is expressly within the coverage of section 147 of the MV Act, 1988.
- Precedents cited by the insurer (including Cholleti Bharatamma, Vedwati, Saju P Paul, Keshav Agrawal) were distinguished as inapplicable since those involved unrelated passengers rather than someone furthering the interest of the carriage of goods.
- The award of the Tribunal was found supported by material evidence; the insurer’s evidence did not discharge its burden.
- The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Tribunal’s award.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant Insurance Company):
- Deceased was an unauthorized (gratuitous) passenger, as he boarded the goods vehicle midway without booking or being an owner/representative of the goods.
- Insurance policy covered only the driver and cleaner; no premium paid for any passenger.
- Deceased sat in the rear/trolley, not the cabin, thus not covered.
- The Tribunal misapplied both facts and law, as there is no evidence the deceased was the owner of goods or authorized representative.
- Any person carrying only small goods, or personal belongings should not benefit from coverage.
- Decisions of the Supreme Court (Cholleti Bharatamma, Vedwati, Saju P Paul) and the High Court (Keshav Agrawal) exclude liability for gratuitous passengers.
- After remand, the Tribunal improperly recalculated compensation.
Respondent No. 4 (Owner):
- The Tribunal correctly found that the deceased was travelling with the goods and ensured their safety, thus qualifying for coverage.
- The insurance company failed to prove that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger.
Factual Background
On 13.05.2016, Anand Tirkey was waiting on the roadside with goods when the driver of a pickup goods vehicle (indicating he was en route to Bilaspur via Ambikapur) offered transport. The deceased loaded his goods and sat in the rear compartment to safeguard them. En route, the vehicle overturned due to rash and negligent driving, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. An FIR was lodged under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the IPC. The family filed a compensation claim. The insurance company denied liability on the ground that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger. The Tribunal awarded compensation, and the insurer appealed.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court discussed Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates insurance coverage for the owner of goods or their authorized representative when travelling in a goods vehicle.
- The Court interpreted the provision to include persons accompanying goods for their protection as being within statutory coverage, not “gratuitous passengers.”
- No reading down or constitutional provisions were invoked; the approach was consistent with the clear language of the section.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were issued in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The existing legal position regarding coverage for persons travelling with goods in a goods vehicle is affirmed and clarified.