IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2254 of 2007()
1. K.MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. IBRAHIM, S/O MUHAMMED KUTTY,
... Respondent
2. K.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O KRISHNA PANICKER,
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :03/11/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 2254 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the
Motor Accident Cla`ims Tribunal, Manjeri, in OP(MV) 2042/02. The
claimant while travelling in a lorry sustained injuries on account of its
overturning. Therefore the claimant filed an application for
compensation. The Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs.31,550/- but
exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability and directed the
2nd respondent in the claim petition to pay the amount, though it
made respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition jointly and severally
liable for the same. It is against that decision, the owner has come
up in appeal.
2. It is attempted to be contended that the claimant was a
person travelling in the lorry as the representative of the owner of the
goods. Though respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance before the
court below, they did not even file a written statement. Learned
counsel for the Insurance Company has made available before me a
copy of the application filed by the claimant. In para.28 of the petition
MACA No. 2254/07
2
there is absolutely no averment to the effect that he was a
representative of the owner of the goods. Para.4 of the petition
would show that he was a coolie and the employment would show
that he is not permanently employed by anybody. So this is a case
where the claimant had travelled in the lorry as a passenger, which
unfortunately met with an accident resulting in sustainment of injuries
to him. The only legal question to be decided in this case is whether
in such case the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount.
3. There is no dispute that the policy issued is only an Act only
policy. It is the settled position of law that the provisions for
compensation and liability of the Insurance Company under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the unamended Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 are in pari materia and it is only by virtue of an amended Act 54
of 1994, which came into effect from 14.11.94, that a statutory
compulsory coverage was provided to the owner of the goods or the
representative of the owner of the goods. This position has been
made crystal clear by the Apex court in the decision reported in New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [2003 (1) KLT 165 (SC)] .
Admittedly, in this case the accident had taken place after the
MACA No. 2254/07
3
amended Act. Unless the claimant or the owner is able to establish
that the claimant was travelling in the lorry as the owner of the goods
or representative of the owner of the goods, the coverage under
section 147 will not be available and being an Act only policy, the
Insurance Company is entitled for total exoneration of the liability.
This is what has been precisely done by the Tribunal applying the
correct provisions of law.
Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. But taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct
the authorities to grant three months’ time for the appellant to pay the
balance amount. The amount already deposited by the owner for the
purpose of filing the appeal be disbursed to the claimant.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
MACA No. 2254/07
4