Insurance Company Liable To Pay Compensation When Claimants Prove They Were Pedestrians & Not Gratuitous Passengers: J&K&L High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that an insurance company cannot avoid liability for compensation on the plea that the injured persons were gratuitous passengers when the evidence on record establishes that they were pedestrians hit by the offending vehicle.The Court was hearing two appeals filed by Shriram General Insurance Company Limited challenging separate awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rajouri, granting compensation to two injured claimants in connection with a motor vehicle accident.Justice M. A. Chowdhary held that the evidence led before the Tribunal clearly established that the claimants were walking on the road when they were hit by the offending tractor and therefore could not be treated as gratuitous passengers so as to absolve the insurer of liability. The Court observed that when the oral evidence recorded before the Tribunal establishes the manner of the accident, such evidence has to be given precedence even if it runs contrary to the contents of the FIR.Background:The appeals arose from two awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajouri in claim petitions. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of ₹3,23,000 to Pritam Singh and ₹2,16,000 to Romesh Chander along with interest for injuries sustained by them in a road accident.The accident occurred in 2012, when a tractor allegedly driven rashly and negligently by its driver struck the claimants causing them grievous injuries that resulted in permanent disability. The tractor was insured with the appellant insurance company on the date of the accident.Before the Tribunal, the insurance company contested the claim petitions by raising several defences, including that the claimants were gratuitous passengers travelling on the tractor, and since a tractor is insured only for the driver, the insurer could not be held liable for compensation. Despite these objections, the Tribunal held the insurer liable and awarded compensation to the claimants, prompting the Insurance Company to appeal before the High Court. Court's Observations:The High Court examined the primary contention of the insurance company that the claimants were travelling on the tractor as gratuitous passengers and therefore the insurer was not liable to pay compensation. The insurer relied on the FIR, chargesheet, and the report of its investigator to argue that the claimants had been travelling on the offending tractor at the time of the accident.However, the Court noted that neither the FIR nor the chargesheet mentioned that the claimants were travelling on the tractor. The documents merely recorded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor.The Bench further examined the evidence recorded before the Tribunal. The claimants and eyewitnesses had categorically deposed that they were walking on foot from Khandli Bridge towards Mehra Nagrota when the tractor hit them from behind.Significantly, the investigating officer who had investigated the criminal case also stated that no evidence had been collected during investigation to show that the claimants were travelling on the offending vehicle. The Court observed that the opinion of the insurance company's investigator that the claimants were gratuitous passengers was based only on his interpretation of the FIR and chargesheet, which in fact did not contain any such statement.Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chamundeswari, the Court reiterated that if evidence recorded before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents of the FIR, the Tribunal must give greater weight to the evidence recorded during trial.The Court also noted that claims under the Motor Vehicles Act are decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities rather than strict proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the oral and documentary evidence led by the claimants clearly established that they were pedestrians who had been hit by the tractor while walking on the road, the Court maintained. Concluding that the claimants were pedestrians injured due to the negligent driving of the insured vehicle, the court found no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the Court dismissed both appeals and upheld the compensation awarded to the injured claimants.Case Title: Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Romesh Chander & Ors. and Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pritam Singh & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) Click here to read/download the Judgment

Insurance Company Liable To Pay Compensation When Claimants Prove They Were Pedestrians & Not Gratuitous Passengers: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags