The High Court had earlier argued that the car was not intended to transport passengers, quoting a limitation in the insurance policy under "Limitation as to Use." They said that only employees covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act could have been legitimate passengers. The Insurance Company also maintained that the people traveling — a student, a postal worker, a caterer, a painter, and a jobless man — were not insured under the policy. They also hinted at overloading, as reports indicated more than four passengers and even nine fatalities.

But when the issue came to more judicial scrutiny, closer examination of the certificates and permits revealed a different picture. The certificate of registration categorized the vehicle as a "Utility Van" with a seating capacity of 4+1 (driver inclusive). The permit for contract carriage also justified the transportation of five people. According to the Motor Vehicles Act, a contract carriage was different from a goods carriage. The utility van was meant to transport both cargo and passengers, not cargo alone. The package policy also had the same seating capacity, and the Insurance Company had issued it upon verification of all the documents of the vehicle.

Even the branch manager of Insurance Company conceded under cross-examination that the van was insured as a "Utility Van" with 4+1 seating, not as goods vehicle. With such concessions and documents on record, the Court held that "limitation as to use" had no application. Thus, the Insurance Company could not wriggle out of its obligation.

Before the case could be closed, however, the judges observed a single defect of compensation. In a single claim (MACT Case No. 134 of 2014), no personal expenses deduction of 1/3rd had been made in computing the loss of income. The Court asked the Tribunal to correct this before issuing the award.