The Bombay High Court rejected an appeal challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide which, it had awarded compensation to the claimant. The Court observed that the Claimant cannot be termed as a gratuitous passenger as he was travelling with goods in the capacity of owner, as his father had purchased the said goods.
Brief Facts:
The father of the Claimant by name Prabhakar Janardan Davne had decided to build the boat/trawler. For that purpose, the Claimant, along with his father and one carpenter, had gone to Lasalgaon for purchasing the wood. After purchasing the wood, it was loaded in the truck and they were returning by the said truck on 14 January 2009. When they were returning at about 7.00 p.m., the driver of the offending truck drove the same in a negligent manner at high and excessive speed, without taking into consideration the condition of the road and on a sloppy turn near village Dengachimet he gave a dash to the roadside crack (Darad). Due to this accident, Claimant and Mahesh sustained injuries. His father Prabhakar also sustained severe injuries. The Claimant took treatment as an indoor patient in the hospital at Dahanu. The issue in the case was raised by the appellant's insurance company. It argued that the Claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, in spite of that, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation which is erroneous.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Learned Counsels for the Appellants argued that the Claimant cannot be considered the owner of goods. He was traveling with his father in the offending truck and his occupation was shown as labourer. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously held that the Claimant was an owner of goods. The occupation of the Claimant was shown in the Claim Petition as a laborer. If he was a laborer, how the Claimant can be considered as the owner of the goods? But this fact was not considered by the Tribunal and awarded compensation. Hence, the Counsel requested to allow the Appeal.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsels for the Respondents argued that the Claimant has suffered 50% permanent partial disability in the said accident. The father of the Claimant wanted to purchase wood for constructing the boat/trawler. At the time of the accident, the Claimant was major. After purchasing the said goods, he was traveling with his father in the offending truck. So, the Claimant cannot be considered as a gratuitous passenger. The accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending truck. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects while awarding compensation. Hence, the Counsel submitted, no interference is required in it.
Observations of the Court
The Court noted that the father of the Claimant had hired the offending truck for carrying goods. After purchasing the goods while returning, an accident occurred in which the father of the Claimant died while the Claimant and the other person i.e., the carpenter got injured. The Court observed that the Claimant cannot be termed as a gratuitous passenger as he was traveling with goods in the capacity of owner, as his father had purchased the said goods.
Concurring with the findings of the Tribunal, the Court reiterated that the Claimant had traveled with his father for purchasing the goods cannot be said as unreasonable. If Claimant joined his father to help him for loading and unloading of the wood in the truck and to see that it is safely transported, it cannot be said that he had travelled with his father unnecessarily. If this is the position, then certainly considering the overall circumstances in this case, it can be said that Claimant was traveling in the truck in the capacity of the owner of the goods loaded in the truck along with his father.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Claimant was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending truck.
Case Title: United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mr. Sanjay Prabhakar Davane & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Shivkumar Dige
Case no.: FIRST APPEAL NO.1512 OF 2013
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Rahul Mehta
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. T.J. Mendon
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
