IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1492 of 2008()
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PRINCE T.P., KOTHATTUPARACKAL,
... Respondent
2. SHEEBA SHIJU, KADUTHODIL (H),
3. ROY @ ROY ANTONY, VADAKKEVEETTIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEW SKARIA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :04/12/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
M.A.C.A.No.1492 OF 2008
.............................................
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the award of the
Claims Tribunal, Pala in OP(MV)No.233/2005. The claimant
while travelling in a Maruti van sustained injuries and the
Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.18,000/=.
The Tribunal negatived the contention of the insurance
company regarding its non-liability and directed it to pay the
amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company
has filed this appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well
as learned counsel for the claimant. The learned counsel
for the insurance company would contend before me that,
a perusal of para-9 of the award would indicate that, the
claimant has stated that he had no job at the time of the
accident. Therefore, he would contend that his case that he
was accompanying the goods of the owner cannot be
accepted and since the vehicle cover only by an Act only
policy, it will not cover the risk of the claimant.
: 2 :
M.A.C.A.No.1492 OF 2008
3. On the contra, the learned counsel for the claimant
would contend that he was really engaged in transport of
waste materials and therefore he is covered. The claimant
had given a statement to the police from the hospital on
7.1.2005 i.e., immediately after the accident. The learned
counsel for the claimant had made available a copy of that
statement to me. A reading of that statement would show
that the claimant is engaged as a worker in a super market
which belongs to Kaduthodil people. According to him, till a
week prior to the accident, he was working in a grocery
shop and on the date of the accident he has stated that he is
working in that super market. It is also specifically stated
that his work is to dress the chicken and after doing the
same, as per the directions of the owner, along with the
waste of the chicken and fish materials, he was travelling in
the vehicle. It was at that time, the accident had taken place.
So it is very clear that the accident had taken place while the
claimant as the representative of the owner of the goods was
travelling in the vehicle to unload the waste materials to a
third person as directed by the owner. When it is so, by
: 3 :
M.A.C.A.No.1492 OF 2008
virtue of the amended provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 54
of 94, the owner of the goods or representative of the
owner of the goods is covered by the statutory policy and
therefore, the insurance company is liable.
4. I am informed that an appeal is pending for
considering the quantum about which I need not consider in
this case as not being the subject matter. On the point
that had arisen in this appeal, I do not find any error
committed by the Tribunal.
Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and the same is
dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl
: 4 :
M.A.C.A.No.1492 OF 2008