IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 210 of 2008()
1. SHAJI, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNNIKRISHNAN.G.,
... Respondent
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.T.N.ARUNKUMAR (PERUMBAVOOR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :31/10/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 210 OF 2008
---------------------
Dated this the 31stday of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, in OP(MV) 2185/03.
The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal
awarded him a compensation of Rs.23,585/- with 7% interest. The
Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability. Challenging
the exoneration of the Insurance Company and dissatisfied with the
quantum awarded, the claimant has come up in appeal .
2. Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the
Insurance Company. So far as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, the claimant has sustained a fracture of the calcaneum.
The Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings,
Rs.8,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of
amenities and enjoyment in life. There has been no disability at all.
On all other heads, the Tribunal has awarded a proper
compensation. Therefore the quantum of compensation does not
call for any interference.
MACA No. 210/08
2
3. The next question is regarding exoneration of the
Insurance Company. The contention of the claimant itself is that he
was accompanying the goods carried in the lorry. The Tribunal
towards the end of para.7 of the award had very clearly entered into
a finding that “all these documents are sufficient enough to prove that
the petitioner was travelling in the lorry as an authorised
representative of the goods carried in the vehicle and the accident
took place due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the
lorry.” But when it reaches the question of liability discussed in
para.9 of the award , the Tribunal would say that the policy issued is
only an Act only policy and therefore it is not liable to indemnify the
owner.
4. The finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. It has been
well settled in the dictum laid down in New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Asha Rani [2003 (1) KLT 165 (SC)] that the provisions of the
old Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 and the unamended Act of 1988 are
in pari materia and it does not cover the risk of an owner of the goods
or representative of the owner of the goods. By virtue of amendment
to the Motor Vehicles Act 54 of 1994 the legislature has incorporated
MACA No. 210/08
3
that the owner of the goods and representative of owner of goods are
covered by policy being a statutory obligation cast under section 147
of the Motor Vehicles Act. When that is the case, no additional
premium need be paid to cover the owner of goods or representative
of the owner of the goods. So in the light of the settled position, the
finding of the Tribunal is incorrect and it requires interference. The
Insurance Company is statutorily bound to pay the compensation.
Therefore, the appeal is disposed of as follows:
The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
confirmed. The finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is
exonerated from the liability is set aside and the Insurance Company
is directed to pay the amount to the claimant within a period of 60
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
MACA No. 210/08
4