Insurer Liable for Worker on Tractor: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Gratuitous Passenger Defence
Misc. Appeal 410 of 2017
by Rishika Sinha
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., while partly allowing a cross-objection by the claimants, holding that a “labourer travelling on a tractor in the course of employment cannot be treated as a gratuitous passenger to evade insurer liability.
The case arose from a motor accident involving the death of Jitram Oraon, who was travelling on a tractor owned by a private individual. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lohardaga, had awarded compensation to the deceased’s family. Challenging the award, the Insurance Company contended that the deceased was merely a gratuitous passenger and that no premium had been paid to cover such risk. It further argued that the deceased’s own negligence led to the accident. Opposing this, the claimants asserted that the deceased was employed as a coolie/loader on the tractor and was travelling in connection with his work. The claimants also filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal had incorrectly applied settled principles governing motor accident compensation.
Chief Justice M.S. Sonak rejected the insurer’s contention, noting that consistent witness testimony established that the deceased was working as a labourer on the tractor and earning a monthly income. The Court observed that the Insurance Company had failed to produce any evidence to prove that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. Accordingly, the insurer’s liability to pay compensation was upheld. On the issue of negligence, the Court found no material to support the argument that the deceased was responsible for the accident, and dismissed this contention as meritless.
While examining the quantum of compensation, the Court found that the Tribunal had failed to correctly apply the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in relation to consortium, prospects, and conventional heads. It held that the consortium should be awarded at ₹40,000 to each claimant rather than as a lump sum, that prospects should be calculated at 40%, and that proper amounts must be granted towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Recomputing the compensation, the Court enhanced the award from ₹11.83 lakh to ₹14.39 lakh. It further held that although the interest rate of 6% per annum was reasonable, the Tribunal erred in granting it from the date of the award. The Court clarified that interest must run from the date of filing of the claim petition. Dismissing the insurer’s appeal and partly allowing the claimants’ cross-objection, the High Court directed payment of the enhanced compensation along with interest from the date of the claim petition till realisation.
