Insurer Can't Claim Exemption In Absence Of Material To Show Claimant Was A 'Gratuitous Passenger': Gauhati High Court

The claimant was travelling in a truck, the driver of the vehicle lost control and knocked one stationary vehicle and one electric pole. The claimant sustained serious injuries on his left upper limb and subsequently the upper limb of the claimant was amputated.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) Kamrup, Guwahati awarded a sum of Rs.3,31,000/- as compensation to the claimant by an order dated 02.02.2006 against which the insurance company filed an appeal Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended) against the impugned judgment and award.

The ground of appeal was that the claimant was a ‘gratuitous’ passenger and therefore he is not entitled to get any compensation.

The claimant pleaded that he was the second driver of the vehicle and was sitting inside the driver’s cabin while the other driver was driving the vehicle.

While dismissing the appeal, Justice ParthivJyoti Saikia observed:

“The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not define the expression ‘gratuitous passenger’. However, Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act expressly exempts the case of a ‘gratuitous passenger’ in a goods vehicle in a public place. But gratuitous passenger would mean one who has taken lift.”

The court held that there is no evidence in this case that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger.

“The appellant/insurance company realized premium for five employees. The insurance policy does not stipulate the nature of employment of the employees covered by the policy. Therefore, the claimant is not a gratuitous passenger.”, the court ruled.

Hence, the court dismissed the appeal for being devoid of merits and upheld the award of MACT.

Case Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Karuna Barman and 2 Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 17

Coram: Justice ParthivJyoti Saikia

ClickHere to Read/Download Judgment