[2025:RJ-JP:41681] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 7/2004 Nemi Chand S/o Shri Ramji Lal, aged about 27 years, R/o Tatarpur, Tehsil Mundawar, District alwar (Rajasthan ) ----Appellant/Claimant Versus 1. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Onkar, r/o Gularwali Dhani, Tan Jindoli, Police Station Kharthal, District Alwar (Rajasthan). (Driver of vehicle No.RJ 02 G 3967 TATA 609) 2. Kewal Ram S/o Shri Tehal Ram, R/o Mothuka, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan). (Owner of TATA 609 No.RJ QG 3967 (deceased) 2/1 Kamlesh alias Kamal s/o Shri Kewal Ram, R/o Mothuka, Tehsil Kishangarh District Alwar (Rajasthan) 2/1 Rajesh @ Ram S/o Shri Kewal Ram, R/o Mothuka, Tehsil Kishangarh, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan ). 3. United India Insurance company Ltd., Through Manager, Mandaliya Karayalaya, Ashok Circle, Alwar (Rajasthan). (Insurance Co.-vehicle No.RJ 02 G 3967 Tata 609). 4. Jawahar Singh S/o Durga Prasad Rajput, R/o Kangada (Himachal), presently at C-42, Ganesh Nagar, Police station Tilak Nagar, Delhi (Bus Driver-vehicle NO.DL-1 P 7202) 5. Ashwani Kumar S/o Shri Chaman Lal, R/o 71/86, Prem Nagar, New Delhi (Owner : vehicle NO.DL-1 P-6202). 6. National Insurance Company Ltd., Through the Manager, Mandaliya Karayalaya, 61 Aerodrum Road, Alwar (Rajasthan )- Insurance Company vehicle NO.DL-1 P-7 202). ----Respondents/Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.N. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avadesh Kumar Purohit Mr. Buddhi Prakash Sharma for Mr. H.C. Ganeshia Ji & Mr. M.L. Sharma Ms. Jyoti Swami on behalf of Ms. Sharda Pathak Ms. Neha Swami on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Saxena HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA [2025:RJ-JP:41681] (2 of 6) [CMA-7/2004] Order 07/10/2025 1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) against the award dated 25.09.2003 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behror District Alwar (Rajasthan) (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 97/2000. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/claimant preferred a claim petition seeking compensation for the accident that occurred on 09.03.2000 in which he suffered serious injuries including a fracture, which made him permanently disabled. In the claim petition, it was stated that while he was travelling in vehicle Tata 709 RJ-02-G-3976, a Matador bearing Registration No. DL-1G-7202 collided with it due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Matador. In the claim petition, it was further mentioned that the claimant was escorting the light generator and in that accident, five to six persons died. The respondents filed the reply to the claim petition controverting the facts of the claim petition. The defendant respondent No. 3, Insurance Company of the Vehicle No. RJ-02-G- 3967, in which the claimant was travelling, preferred a separate reply pleading that the company is not liable to indemnify the owner/driver as the insured vehicle was a goods vehicle and the passengers were being carried without authorisation. [2025:RJ-JP:41681] (3 of 6) [CMA-7/2004] The Tribunal decided five claim petitions preferred by different persons pertaining to the said accident by a common judgement/award dated 25.09.2003. The Tribunal absolved the Insurance Company from the liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle no. RJ-02-G-3967 and awarded Rs. 26250/- to the appellant/claimant. Being aggrieved against the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant-appellant, this appeal has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel for appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal computed the income of the appellant/claimant as Rs. 60/- per day, being the minimum wages without stating anything about his income. He also submits that it was the duty of the Tribunal to assess the income of claimant/appellant in an objective manner and to not compute the same at the minimum, merely because of inadvertent non-mentioning of his income by him. He further submits that the monthly income of the claimant was about Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month and he was engaged in several activities such as agriculture, marketing of agriculture products, operating of light generator etc., moreover, the claimant was escorting his light generator in the vehicle which was also damaged, and thus, the Insurance Company is liable to compensate him. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further submits that the Tribunal did not include the amount of the medical expenses incurred by the appellant/claimant in respect of the bills submitted by him in which his name was not mentioned, and thus, prayed for enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 26250/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. [2025:RJ-JP:41681] (4 of 6) [CMA-7/2004] 4. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record. 5. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the facts on record, the Court has to examine whether there is any need to interfere with the learned Tribunal’s decision when the appellant/claimant was travelling in the goods vehicle, not for protecting the luggage, but for some other purpose. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1, observed as under:- “14. ...Such an amendment was made by Parliament consciously. Having regard to the definition of “goods carriage” vis-à-vis “public service vehicle”, it is clear that whereas the goods carriage carrying any passenger is not contemplated under the 1988 Act as the same must be used solely for carrying the goods. ... 17. By reason of the 1994 amendment what was added is “including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle”. The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned amendment included only the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties. The intention of Parliament, therefore, could not have been that the words “any person” occurring in Section 147 would cover all persons who were travelling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever. If such was the intention, there was no necessity of Parliament to carry out an amendment inasmuch as the expression “any person” contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 would have included the owner of the goods or his authorised representative besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise. ... 20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other [2025:RJ-JP:41681] (5 of 6) [CMA-7/2004] than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.” 7. In the present case, the appellant/claimant testified before the Tribunal that he suffered loss of property worth Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-, including the light generator etc., and that he got his hand bone broken and got injured in his back for which treatment had to be taken for six months. He did not make any statement with respect to his income. 8. The Tribunal observed that as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the income of the claimant be computed at Rs. 60/- per day for 25 working days in a month. Moreover, in view of no name of the claimant being mentioned on the medical bills, reimbursement did not seem appropriate. 9. It has been observed that the claimant was travelling in the truck to play band and had the luggage with him only for this purpose, and not for the protection of the same, thus, the amended provision of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, does not apply in the case at hand. Thus, the insurance company was absolved from the liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and the appellant/claimant was awarded Rs. 26250/- as compensation. 10. Having regard to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted above and the discussions made and also taking [2025:RJ-JP:41681] (6 of 6) [CMA-7/2004] into consideration the factual matrix of the case and prayer made in this civil miscellaneous appeal, the Court is of the opinion that there is no requirement to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision. The appellant/claimant, who travelling in a goods carriage for playing the band and not for protecting the luggage, is not entitled to indemnification. Moreover, in regard to the view taken by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is not entitled to any enhanced compensation. 11. In view of the discussion made above, this civil miscellaneous appeal deserves to be dismissed as the submissions of the appellant/claimant lack merit and warrant no interference. 12. Accordingly, instant civil misc. appeal is dismissed. 13. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /73