In a ruling that sharpens the contours of motor accident liability, the Supreme Court has said an insurer may be required to compensate victims first—even if the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle—provided the journey was incidental to transporting goods.
The verdict came in Kaminiben & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors., where a two-judge bench led by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria revisited a fatal accident tied to a Ganesh idol immersion procession.
When Travel Is Secondary
The case revolved around a tempo hired to carry a Ganesh idol for immersion in the Narmada River. The deceased had travelled in the same vehicle along with the idol. The vehicle, classified as a goods vehicle, was insured at the time of the accident.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded ₹13.23 lakh in compensation to the claimants and directed the insurer to deposit the amount first, with liberty to recover it from the vehicle owner later.
However, the High Court relieved the insurer of this “pay and recover” obligation, holding that it could not be saddled with liability in such circumstances.
The Supreme Court saw it differently.
The bench underscored that the dominant purpose of hiring the vehicle was not to ferry passengers but to transport the Ganesh idol for immersion. The deceased’s presence in the vehicle, it noted, was incidental to that purpose. At most, he could be considered a gratuitous passenger travelling with his goods—the idol itself.
Drawing the Legal Line
The insurer leaned on the precedent set in Amudhavalli & Ors. v. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., arguing that no liability could be fastened even on a pay-and-recover basis when a person travels in a rented goods vehicle.
But the Court distinguished that case on facts. There, the vehicle had been hired for travel. Here, it was hired to carry goods, with travel merely accompanying the cargo.
Instead, the bench relied on its earlier ruling in Manuara Khatun & Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors., which had endorsed the mechanism of directing insurers to satisfy awards first and then recover the sum from the insured party within the same proceedings.
Tribunal’s Award Restored
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s direction. The insurer must deposit the compensation amount and may subsequently recover it from the vehicle owner.
The decision reinforces a pragmatic approach: ensuring victims or their families are not left waiting for relief due to technical disputes over liability, while preserving the insurer’s right to reimbursement.
In accident compensation law, the message is clear—when goods are the main cargo and travel is only incidental, insurers may still be asked to pay upfront.
