Holding

The victims were gratuitous passengers; therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay compensation under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Summary

The accident occurred on 15 May 2002 when a Tata 407 goods vehicle, being used to transport members of a marriage party, overturned, killing Sunil Kumar and injuring several others. The claimants, heirs and legal representatives of the deceased and injured, filed claim petitions before the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, asserting compensation under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal and the Punjab & Haryana High Court held the insurer, National Insurance Co. Ltd., liable, but the insurer appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the victims were gratuitous passengers or representatives of the owner of the goods, and considered the admissibility of the FIR incorporated in the claim petition. Relying on the claim petition, FIR, and depositions showing 30‑40 persons were in the vehicle, the Court concluded the victims were gratuitous passengers, not owners’ representatives, and that the insurer was not liable for compensation. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the lower courts’ award and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the deceased and injured persons were gratuitous passengers or representatives of the owner of the goods in a goods vehicle.
Whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for gratuitous passengers.
Whether the First Information Report, incorporated in the claim petition, is admissible for determining liability.
Who bears the burden of proof to establish the status of the passengers.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 147, s. 173(1)
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Actinsurance liabilitygratuitous passengergoods vehicleclaim petitionFIR admissibilityburden of proof

Judgment

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1251

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. A•
v.
~-1 RATTAN! AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 7399 of 2008)

DECEMBER 18, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.147 - Gratuitous passenger
>~ - Claimants travelling in goods vehicles as members of
marriage party - Liability of insurer to pay compensation - c
Held: Not liable.
Evidence: FIR made part of claim petition - Held:
Although allegations made in FIR not admissible in evidence
but since made part of claim petition, Court entitled to look
into the same. D
The deceased along with other injured persons were -
travelling in a goods vehicle as members of a marriage
party, which met with an accident. An FIR was lodged
"'" against the driver of the vehicle for rash and negligent
driving. E
The claim petitions were filed by heirs and legal
representatives of the deceased and other injured
persons. The Tribunal passed an award of compensation,
which was upheld by the High Court.
In appeal to this Court, appellant-insurance company F
contended that the deceased and the injured were
-~ members of a marriage party only and could not have
travelled in a goods vehicle as representatives of the
owner of the goods.
Allowing the appeal, the court G
..,- HELD: 1.1. Ordinarily an allegation made in the first
information would not be admissible in evidence per se
} but as the allegation made in the first information report
had been made a part of the claim petition, there is no
1251 H
"'
1252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A doubt whatsoever that the Tribunal and consequently the
appellate courts would be entitled to look into the same.
However, in their depositions, the claimants raised a new
plea, namely that the deceased and the other injured
persons were travelling in the said truck as
representatives of the owner of the goods. [Paras 7 and
8
8] (1255-H; 1256-A-B]
1.2. Ordinarily this Court would not have entered into
the realm of appreciation of evidence but as the High
Court failed and/or neglected to do so, this Court has
C undertaken the job of the High Court. The firsJ }-
information report which was brought on record, clearly
proceeded on the basis that the deceased and the other
injured persons were members of the marriage party.
Even if the submission of owner of truck that in the truck
the goods offered by way of gift by the bride party wer~
D being transported is correct, the deceased and others
could not have become the representatives of the owner
of the goods. Even otherwise in view of the averrnents
made in the claim petition and the first information report
the said contention cannot be accepted. Furthermore in
E their depositions the witnesses examined on behalf of the
claimants themselves stated that about 30 - 40 persons
were traveling in the tempo truck. All 30 - 40 persons by
no stretch of imagination could have been the
representatives of the owners of goods, meaning
F thereby, the articles of gift. [Paras 11 and 12] (1257-A-E]
1~3. The question as to whether burden of proof has
been discharged by a party to the /is or not would depend ,;~
upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the facts
are admitted or, if otherwise, sufficient materials have
G been brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive
at a definite conclusion, it is idle to contend that the party
on whom the burden of proof lay would still be liable to ~
produce direct evidence to establish that the deceased
and the injured passengers were gratuitous passengers. -\.
The First Information Report as such may or may not be
H
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RATTANI AND ORS. 1253

taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at a A
finding in regard to the question raised by the appellant,
4-1
but, when the First Information Report itself has been
made a part of the claim petition, there cannot be any ·
doubt whatsoever that the same can be looked into for
the said purpose. An admission made in the pleadings,
B
as is well-known, is admissible in evidence proprio vigore.
The Tribunal as also the High Court committed a serious
error in opining that the insurance company was liable.
~\ [Paras 13 and 14] [1257-E-H; 1258-A]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Others c
(2004) 2 sec 1, referred to.
2. The victims of the accidents were travelling in the.
truck as gratuitous passengers and in that view of the
matter, the appellant was not liable to pay the amount of
compensation to the claimants. [Para 14] [1259-0]
D
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (2003) 2 SCC
223 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma
,. ' and Others (2008) 1 sec 423, relied on.
Case Law Reference:
(2004) 2 sec 1 referred to Para 14 E
' (2003) 2 sec 223 relied on Para 14
(2008) 1 sec 423 relied on Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7399 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.7.2006 of the F
~ High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No.
304 of 2006 to 306 of 2006.
M.K. Dua, Kishore Rawat and Dhiraj for the Appellant.
Subramonium Prasad, Varuna Bhandari Gugnani and Tara G
.,, Chandra Sharma for the Respondents .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
)
S.B.SINHA, J.1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied
H
1254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A with the judgment and order dated 31st July, 2006 whereby and
whereunder an appeal preferred by it was dismissed in limine
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh stating ~_;.

"For the reasons in paras 43 & 44 of the award of the
B Tribunal, we find no ground to interfere in this matter.
Dismissed."
3. Ordinarily we wou.ld have remitted' the matter back to
the High Court as the appeal of the appellant under Section )-
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short 'the Act) has
C not been considered on merit, but, kee'ping in view the fact that
the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 being mother, brothers and sisters
of the deceased having been awarded a total amount of
compensation of Rupees one lac forty thousand only, we chose
to hear the parties on merit.
D 4. The accident took place on 15th May, 2002 when
deceased Sunil Kumar alongwith other injured persons, were
travelling as members of a marriage party in a Tata 407 vehicle
bearing registration No. HR-39-9869. Indisputably it was a "•
goods vehicle. The first information report was lodged in relation
E thereto wherein the driver of the vehicle was made an accused.
5. Separate claim petitions were filed by the heirs and
legal representatives of the deceased as well as by the injured
before the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani.
In the claim-petition in question, the relevant portion of the
F claim form was filled up as under :-
"Was the person in respect of the whom compensation is
claimed, traveling in the motor vehicle involved in the
accident, if so, give the name of station and start of journey
and its destination?
G Yes, the deceased Sunil Kumar alongwith others was
traveling as a Barati in the Tata 407 being driven by the
respondent no.1 and they were returning after attending the
marriage function from village Jharli to Kusumbi."
Against the column 'cause of accident with brief
H
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RATIANI AND ORS.1255
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

descriptions' it was stated:- A
"Brief facts of the accident are that the deceased Sunil
4_ --1
Kumar alongwith others was traveling in the capacity as
Barati in Tata 407 in question and after attending the
marriage function were returning from Jharli to village
Kusumbhi in the Tata 407 which was being driven by the B
respondent no.1. The vehicle was being driven rashly,
negligently and at a very high speed and inspite of warning
to the respondent no.1 to drive the vehicle slowly the
-~ respondent no.1 continued driving rashly and negligently
and on 15.5.2002 at about 6.30 PM when the vehicle after c·
crossing Railway Phatak of Dhalwas and were going
towards Sehlanga due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent no. 1, the respondent no.1 lost control on the
vehicle resulting to turn turtle and several persons suffered
grievous injuries and deceased Sunil and one
Photographer named Hazari died at the spot. On the D
statement of Rameshwar son of Akhey Ram, r/o. Mundhal
Khurd, one of the eye witness and traveling as Barati FIR
~ ... No. 98 dated 16.5.2002 was lodged against the
respondent No.1, which contains the detailed manner of
accident how it took place and be read as part of this E

• petition. The respondents being the driver, owner and
insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation
to the petitioners."
6. As a reference has been made to the first information
report bearing No. 98 dated 16th May, 2002, which was lodged F
against the driver, first respondent in the claim petition, we may
-')
also notice the relevant portion of the contents thereof from the
award of the 1ribunal.:-
II
... He referred to the contents of FIR Ex. P2 wherein
it is mentioned that all the members of marriage party were G
the occupants of the four wheeler and there was no mention
that dowry articles or some furniture etc. were loaded in
; the vehicle."
7. We are not oblivious of the fact that ordinarily an
allegation made in the first information would not be admissible H
•
1256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A in evidence per se but as the allegation made in the first
information report had been made a part of the claim petition,
there is no doubt whatsoever that the Tribunal and consequently .'!-_..
the appellate courts would be entitled to look into the same.
8. However, in their depositions, the claimants raised a
B new plea, namely that the deceased and the other injured
persons were travelling in the said truck as representatives of
the owner of the goods.
.!
9. Mr. M,K. Dua, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant would submit that in the aforementioned situation
c there is no escape from the conclusion that the deceased and
the injured were members of a marriage party only and could
not have tra'ilelled in a goods vehicle as representatives of the
owner of the goods.
10. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned counsel appearing
D on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, on the other hand,
submitted that it was for the insurance company to prove
breach of conditions of the insurance policy and the same
having not been done, the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be
assailed.
E In this connection our attention has been drawn to the
following findings of the Tribunal:-
"In the present case the evidence on record indicates that
deceased Sunil Kumar and other injured were occupy.ing
the offending vehicle as being representative of the owner
F of the goods. No evidence was produced on behalf of the
Insurance Company to the effect that deceased and injured
were gratuitous passengers .. ,.... All the injured petitioners f"- I

were cross examined at length but nothing useful to the
case of Insurance Company could be exacted from them.
They deposed that for carrying members of marriage party
G
there was one bus. Hence it is observed that Insurance
Company failed to prove that insured had violated the ,
terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Deceased \,
Sunil and injured Maru and Rameshwar were not
I
gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle being ,--
H
•.
~
I
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RATTANI AND ORS. 1257
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

representative of the owner of the goods." A
"'-I 11. Ordinarily we would not have entered into the realm of
appreciation of evidence but as the High Court failed and/or
neglected to do so, we have no other option but to undertake
the job of the High Court. The first information report which was
brought on record, clearly proceeded on the basis that the B
deceased and the other injured persons were members of the
marriage party.
'~~ 12. Even if the submission of Mr. Subramonium Prasad
OCO'X
that in the truck the goods offered by way of gift by the bride
party were being transported is correct, the deceased and c
others could not have become the representatives of the owner
of the goods. Even otherwise in view of the averments made
in the claim petition and the first information report the said
contention cannot be accepted.
Furthermore in their depositions the witnesses examined D
on behalf of the claimants themselves stated that about 30 -
..... 40 persons were travelling in the tempo truck. All 30 - 40
persons by no stretch of imagination could have been the
representatives of the owners of goods, meaning thereby, the
articles of gift.
E
13. The question as to whether burden of proof has been
discharged by a party to the lis or not would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of the case. If the facts are admitted
or, if otherwise, sufficient materials have been brought on record
•, so as to enable a court to arrive at a definite conclusion, it is
F
-)
idle to contend that the party on whom the burden of proof lay
would still be liable to produce direct evidence to establish that
I
~ the deceased and the injured passengers were gratuitous
passengers.
As indicated hereinbefore, the First Information Report as
G
such may or may not be taken into consideration for the
purpose of arriving at a finding in regard to the question raised
) by the appellant herein, but, when the First Information Report
itself has been made a part of the claim petition, there cannot
be any doubt whatsoever that the same can be looked into for
H

l
1258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A the aforementioned purpose. -
14. An admission made in the pleadings, as is well-known, '>-__..
is admissible in evidence proprio vigore. We, thus, are of the
opinion that the Tribunal as also the High Court committed a r-
)
serious error in opining that the insurance company was liable.
B Reliance placed by the learned counsel on a decision of
this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and >--
.,...
Others [(2004) 2 SCC 1] is misplaced. The question whicH
arose for consideration therein was as to whether the words
"any person" shall include a gratuitous passenger despite the
f_,,-
·-
'
r
\.

c amendment made in Section 147 of the Act by reason of the I
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994. I"

Following New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani
[(2003) 2 sec 223], it was categorically held:
"20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment A
.,
D of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section
147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the 1• ~

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
E insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the
;
.
I-
intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the
insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous
.I

.,,.
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 "'
F ~
such category of people."
t- ,,.......
In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma
and Others [(2008) 1 SCC 423], this Court categorically held:
"27. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent,
G submitted that from the aforementioned finding, it is evident -'
that the respondent was travelling as the owner of the
'
goods. We do not think that the said submission is correct. y

PW 2, in his evidence, stated: ~ \

"I am doing tamarind business. I witnessed the
H accident which took place about 3 years back at ,.,.
e NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RATTANI AND ORS.1259
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
about 6 a.m. at Borrampalem junction beyond A
Talluru. At the time of the accident I was in the crime
lorry by the side of the driver. Myself and 6 others
were carrying tamarind in that lorry belonging to us.
We boarded the lorry along with our load of
tamarind at Dharamavaram to go to Rajanagaram.
We were selling the tamarind at Rajanagaram in B
retail by taking the tamarind there in our lorry from
our village of Dharamavaram."
28. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly recorded that
according to PW 2, he was travelling with his goods as C
owner thereof and not the deceased."
We, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
have no hesitation to hold that the victims of the accidents were
travelling in the truck as gratuitous passengers and in that view
of the matter, the appellant herein was not liable to pay the
amount of compensation to the claimants. 0

15. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned
> "" judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside in so far as
the liability of the appellant herein i& concerned. The appeal is
allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs. E
D.G. Appeal allowed.

-\