NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. SHEETAL ORS

Appearance: Mr. Pankaj Seth and Ms. Shruti Jain, Advocate for Insurance Company. Mr. Pankaj Gupta & Mr. Amit Rana, Advocates for claimants. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN Signature Not Verified Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:22.12.2025 19:59:59 MAC.APP. 1159/2014 & connected matters Page 2 of 17 PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) 1. These nine appeals, by National Insurance Company Limited [“Insurance Company”], are directed against a common award dated

30.09.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”], in nine claims, all arising out of an accident which took place on 12.08.2006. A. 2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND IMPUGNED AWARD The insured vehicle was a Tempo bearing registration No. RJ-31- GA-0683. The accident occurred at a location opposite Azad Hind Gram, Main Rohtak Road, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, when the driver of the insured vehicle is alleged to have been driving at a high speed, and lost control over the vehicle, as a result of which the vehicle turned turtle. 3. The original claimants were the legal representatives of four persons who died in the accident, and five injured victims. In one case [MAC No. 93/2014], the claimant died during the pendency of the claim, and was substituted by his legal heirs. The particulars, with regard to the identity of the victims, the claimants, and the case number are tabulated below: Case No. Sr.No. 1. MAC.APP. 1159/2014 [arising out of MAC No. 95/2014] Victim Mr. Hem Singh (Fatality) Ms. Sheetal (Injury)

2. MAC.APP. 1160/2014 [arising out of MAC No. 102/2014] 3. MAC.APP. 1162/2014 [arising out of MAC No. 91/2014] Claimants Ms. Geeta [Wife] Mr. Aman [Son] Mr. Paras [Son] Ms. Ramwati [Mother] Ms. Sheetal Mr. Ashok Kumar (Injury) Mr. Ashok Kumar Signature Not Verified Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:22.12.2025 19:59:59 MAC.APP. 1159/2014 & connected matters Page 3 of 17

4. MAC.APP. 1164/2014 [arising out of MAC No. 93/2014] Mr. Raj Pal – (Injury during pendency of the claim petition)

5. MAC.APP. 1165/2014 [arising out of MAC No. 92/2014] 6. MAC.APP. 1166/2014 [arising out of MAC No. 100/2014] Ms. Shashi (Injury) Mr. Vikas Kumar (Fatality)

7. MAC.APP. 1167/2014 [arising out of MAC No. 99/2014] Mr. Lalji (Fatality) Ms. Shashi [Wife] Mr. Deepak [Son] Ms. Anuradha [Daughter] Ms. Shital [Daughter] Mr. Suraj [Son] Ms. Sonu @ Madhvi [Daughter] Ms. Guddo [Daughter] Ms. Shashi Ms. Kusum [Mother] Mr. Sushil Kumar [Father – Since Deceased through Mr. Ashish s/o Mr. Sushil Kumar] Ms. Vimla [Wife] Mr. Rinku [Son] Ms. Seema [Daughter] Ms. Jyoti [Daughter] Ms. Saroj [Mother] Mr. Ajay Singh Mr. Ajay Singh (Injury)

8. MAC.APP. 1169/2014 [arising out of MAC No. 101/2014] 9. MAC.APP. 1170/2014 [arising out of MAC No. 94/2014] Mr. Jai Kumar @ James (Fatality) Ms. Parmila Devi [Wife] Ms. Nandini [Daughter] Ms. Shashi [Mother]

4. The Tribunal found in favour of the claimants on the question of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the insured vehicle [who was arrayed as respondent No.3 in each of the claims before the Tribunal]. It, therefore, proceeded to assess compensation payable in each case. 5. I have heard Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the claimants. Signature Not Verified Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:22.12.2025 19:59:59 MAC.APP. 1159/2014 & connected matters Page 4 of 17 B. 6. RECOVERY RIGHTS AGAINST THE OWNER OF THE INSURED VEHICLE The principal contention of Mr. Seth, which covers all the nine cases, is that the victims were gratuitous passengers in a goods carrier, and were therefore, not covered by the insurance policy. He submits that, in these circumstances, having regard to the judgments of the Supreme Court inter alia in Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju. P. Paul & Anr.1 and Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kr. Singh2, the Tribunal ought to have granted recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the owner of the vehicle. 7. The aforesaid principle has been established in the said decisions, as well as in recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Sunita v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors.3, Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet & Ors.4, and Akula Narayana v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited5. 8. Mr. Seth has also referred me to the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors.6, in which the Court interpreted Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [“the Act”], to hold that the owner of the goods is only the person who travels in the cabin of the insured vehicle. In the present case, the evidence of the owner of the vehicle – Mr. Sunil Kumar, who was examined as R1-W1, is that the victims were owners of the goods being carried in the insured vehicle. However, he charged hire only for carrying goods and not for passengers. He has stated that ten to twelve persons had