Kamini ben vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited -Motor Accident Compensation - Gratuitous Passenger
Motor Accident Compensation - In this case, the deceased was travelling in the subject tempo along with Ganesh Idol, which was taken for immersion - SC held: The dominant purpose for hiring the vehicle was not for travelling but for carrying the Ganesh idol for immersion. Travelling in the vehicle was only incidental, therefore, at best, the deceased can be treated as gratuitous passenger travelling with his goods (Ganesh idol)- when the victim was a gratuitous passenger, this Court issued directions against the insurer of the offending vehicle to first satisfy the awarded sum, and then to recover the same from the insured in the same proceedings.
Case Info
Case Information
Case name and neutral citation:Kamini ben & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors., Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 21802/2023).
Coram
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria.
Judgment date
Judgment/order dated 11 February 2026 (New Delhi).
Case laws and citations referred
- Manuara Khatun & Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors., (2017) 4 SCC 796.
- National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul & Anr., (2013) 2 SCC 41 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 968 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 812 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 399.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 370.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 517 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 357.
- Amudhavalli & Ors. v. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2025 INSC 1219.
Statutes / laws referred
The judgment discusses liability of the insurer with reference to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(scope of compulsory insurance and coverage of gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles).
Brief summary (three sentences)
The deceased was travelling in a goods tempo hired for carrying a Ganesh idol for immersion, and his travel was held to be only incidental, making him at best a gratuitous passenger accompanying his goods. Relying on Manuara Khatun and Saju P. Paul, and distinguishing Amudhavalli (where the goods vehicle was hired for travelling as such), the Supreme Court held that the insurer can be directed to pay the compensation first and then recover it from the owner. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the Tribunal’s award directing “pay and recover,” and clarified that any amount already paid by the insurer shall be given set‑off.