Bombay High Court
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusDHARMENDRA SHYAMLAL GUPTA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the Tribunal’s award of Rs.86,000 is upheld.
Summary
The appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., appealed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.86,000 to the claimant, a vegetable vendor who was injured in a 2005 road accident while transporting his own goods. The insurer argued that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger and thus ineligible for compensation. The Court held that under Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, liability extends to the owner of goods carried in the vehicle, making the claimant eligible. The Court also found no perversity in the Tribunal’s detailed quantum of compensation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal’s award upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the claimant, as owner of the goods being transported, qualifies for compensation under Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 despite the insurer's claim of gratuitous passenger status.
- Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is perverse or requires alteration.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 147(1)(b)(i), 147(1)(b)(ii)
Subjects
- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
- Compensation
- Motor Vehicles Act
- Liability
- Gratuitous passenger
- Quantum of damages
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:18239
Sayyed 913-FA.221.2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.221 OF 2018
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Dharmendra Shyamlal Gupta & Anr. ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Prakash G. Lad a/w Ms. Sayali Apte & Mr. Muralidharan Kalathil for
the Appellant.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATE : 18 APRIL 2026
P.C.:
1. Since the accident occurred in 2005 and the appeal was filed
in 2009, the same is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
2. This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging an
order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai dated 22 April
2008, whereby an amount of Rs.86,000/- was awarded to the claimant
who was injured in the accident. The break-up of Rs.86,000/- is given in
paragraph 8 of the impugned order viz., it consists of pain and
suffering, conveyance and special diet, medical expenses, disability, loss
of amenities of life, loss of income.
3. I have heard Mr. Lad, learned counsel for the insurance
company.
4. The original claimant is a person who buys vegetable from
wholesale market and sales in suburbs. On 2 June 2005, while carrying
vegetables for sale from Vashi to suburbs, the motor vehicle in which
which he was travelling met with an accident at Vile Parle which
1 of 2
Sayyed 913-FA.221.2018.doc
resulted into injuries. The claimant made an application to the Tribunal
and the Tribunal granted Rs.86,000/- as per paragraph 8.
5. The contention of the insurance company that the claimant
was a gratuitous passenger and, therefore, not eligible for compensation
cannot be accepted in the light of Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that liability incurred in respect of
the death or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods
carried in the motor vehicle. In the instant case, the original claimant
was the owner of the vegetable which he was carrying in the goods
vehicle which met with the accident. It is not a case of simplicitor
gratuitous passenger. Therefore, clause (ii) of 147(1)(b) would not be
applicable and the appropriate clause will be 147(1)(b)(i). Therefore,
this contention is to be rejected.
6. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the
Tribunal has given detailed reasoning in paragraph 7 with respect to
each head of compensation. I do not find any perversity in the
reasoning given by the Tribunal for arriving at the quantum of
compensation. At the end of day, it is only an estimate and the Court of
first instance is the best Court for estimating unless perversity is shown
which I do not find in the instant case.
7. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/04/2026 15:00:47 2 of 2
Checking your session…