Case at a Glance
A goods vehicle carrying vegetable vendors and their produce hit the central divider and overturned in Delhi in June 2007, leaving a vendor with grievous injuries. The Claims Tribunal awarded him ₹6,13,760 with 9% interest and made the insurer indemnify. The insurer appealed, calling him a gratuitous passenger and denying that he was even in the vehicle. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an owner of goods travelling with his goods is covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and that the insurer had produced no evidence to rebut the claimant’s version.
At about 5:45 a.m. on 19 June 2007, a goods vehicle (DL-1LB-2297) hit the central divider and overturned, injuring the claimant and others. The driver’s version was that a pedestrian suddenly jumped over a railing and he swerved to avoid him. The claimant was initially taken to hospital as an unknown patient and was declared unfit to make a statement; he was identified later. An FIR was registered and a chargesheet was filed under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC.
By its award dated 27 August 2013 in Suit No. 435A/10, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Central District, Tis Hazari Courts) relied on the FIR, the chargesheet and witness statements showing that vendors were travelling with vegetables, and on a connected claim from the same accident (Pramila Devi & Ors. v. Bijender Kumar & Ors.). It held that the claimant was travelling as owner of goods, rejected the gratuitous-passenger plea, and awarded ₹6,13,760 with 9% interest, directing the insurer to indemnify. The insurer appealed, arguing that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger, that there was no evidence he was in the vehicle, that he had not proved ownership of any vegetables, and that he described himself as a salesman without disclosing his income. It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 01 SC CK 0074, (2004) 2 SCC 1, and sought complete exoneration.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is an injured person travelling in a goods vehicle with his own goods a ‘gratuitous passenger’ for whom the insurer is not liable, or is he covered by the statutory policy under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act?
Owner of Goods Travelling With the Goods Is Statutorily Covered
Justice Anish Dayal explained that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires third-party cover that includes the owner of goods carried in the vehicle, and that an owner of goods travelling with them “is definitely entitled to statutory insurance coverage”. For other occupants not covered by the policy, the insurer has no statutory liability unless “the Court issues a direction to ‘pay and recover’”, so the Court must examine the occupant’s status, the type of vehicle and the purpose of the journey. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Kumari & Ors., (2026) 02 DEL CK 2055, 2026:DHC:1644, which in turn discussed New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2002) 12 SC CK 0070, (2003) 2 SCC 223, on the meaning of ‘gratuitous passenger’ and the 1994 amendment to Section 147.
On the facts, the claimant testified that he boarded at Azadpur Mandi with colleagues for supply of vegetables and was self-employed; he denied being a gratuitous passenger in cross-examination. An eyewitness’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. said the group regularly carried vegetables and that the claimant was among those travelling with their produce. The Court noted that the insurer appeared to have taken the position in the connected case that the deceased there was travelling as owner of vegetables, and found that “there is no evidence produced by the Insurance Company to rebut the claimant’s assertion”. As for his absence from the FIR, the MLC of 19 June 2007 showed he was unconscious and unfit to make a statement, and the MLC and discharge summary corroborated the accident and injuries. The insurer’s plea was held untenable.
What the Court Actually Held
- Under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, an owner of goods travelling in a goods vehicle with those goods is entitled to statutory insurance cover and is not a gratuitous passenger.
- The claimant’s consistent testimony and the eyewitness statement established that he was travelling with vegetables for sale; the insurer led no rebuttal evidence.
- The claimant’s absence from the FIR was explained by medical records showing he was unconscious; the MLC and discharge summary corroborated the accident.
- The insurer’s appeal was dismissed; the statutory deposit, if any, is to be refunded to the insurer only if the deposit order has been complied with.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Vendors and small traders routinely travel in goods vehicles with their produce; the ruling confirms they fall within the statutory cover rather than being treated as unauthorised passengers.
- It shows that an insurer cannot defeat a claim merely by pleading ‘gratuitous passenger’ without leading evidence to rebut the claimant’s account.
- It accepts medical records explaining why an unconscious victim was not named in the FIR, a common issue in serious accident claims.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- If you were travelling in a goods vehicle with your own goods, say so clearly in your claim and evidence, and bring witnesses who travelled with you.
- Keep the MLC and discharge summary; they can explain why your name does not appear in the FIR if you were unconscious.
- Connected claims from the same accident can support your version of who was travelling and why.
For Counsel
- Distinguish National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur where the claimant was an owner of goods travelling with them; rely on Section 147 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Kumari & Ors.
- For insurers, a bare gratuitous-passenger plea will fail without contrary evidence on the occupant’s status and purpose of travel.
- Check positions taken by the insurer in connected claims arising from the same accident.
Key Takeaways
- Owner of goods travelling with the goods is covered by the statutory policy under Section 147 MV Act.
- The insurer bears the practical burden of rebutting the claimant’s evidence on his status in the vehicle.
- Unconsciousness recorded in the MLC can explain a victim’s absence from the FIR.
- The Tribunal’s award of ₹6,13,760 with 9% interest stands after the insurer’s appeal was dismissed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a person travelling with his goods in a truck covered by insurance?
Yes. The Delhi High Court held that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires cover for the owner of goods carried in the vehicle, and such an owner travelling with his goods is entitled to statutory insurance coverage.
Who is a gratuitous passenger?
Broadly, an occupant not carried under the Act, permit or policy. The insurer has no statutory liability for such a person unless the policy covers him or the court directs the insurer to pay and recover from the owner.
What happened to the insurer’s appeal?
It was dismissed on 16 October 2026. The Tribunal’s 2013 award of ₹6,13,760 with 9% interest, with the insurer liable to indemnify, remains in force.
Conclusion
Thirteen years after the Tribunal’s award, the Delhi High Court has confirmed that a vegetable vendor injured while travelling with his produce is a person the statute requires insurers to cover. The insurer’s attempt to recast him as a gratuitous passenger failed because it brought no evidence to contradict him.
Practical takeaway: In goods-vehicle accident claims, establish through the claimant’s and co-travellers’ evidence that the injured person was travelling with his own goods; Section 147 then fixes the insurer’s liability.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com