High Court Kerala High Court

Sivan vs Madhavan on 2 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
Sivan vs Madhavan on 2 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1217 of 2009()


1. SIVAN, S/O.SWAMINATHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MADHAVAN, S/O.ECHARAN, AGED 37 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SANTHOSH.P., S/O.PALANIMALA,

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :02/12/2009

 O R D E R
                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
              = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                M.A.C.A. NO. 1217 OF 2009
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
       Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009.

                      J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV)490/00. The

claimant, while travelling in a goods vehicle sustained

injuries on account of the overturning of the vehicle. The

Tribunal determined the compensation and exonerated the

insurance company from the liability on the ground that it is

only an Act only policy.

2. In order to claim compensation for a person who

travels in a goods vehicle it has to be proved that the said

person was covered by paying premium which will directly

cover the person. Another situation is when that person

travels in the goods vehicle as the owner of the goods or

representative of the owner of the goods. Prior to the

amendment Act 54 of 1994 the legal position was that such

persons were not covered by an Act only policy but by virtue

of the amendment the legislature introduced a clause

M.A.C.A. 1217 OF 2009
-:2:-

covering the risk of the owner of the goods or representative

of the owner of the goods. So if one is able to establish

before the Court that he was travelling in the goods vehicle

in the capacity of an owner of the goods or the

representative of the owner of the goods he may be entitled

to statutory benefit. Similarly the question whether there

must be actual goods at the time of the travel is also a

matter that requires consideration in the light of the various

decisions and especially one in favour of the claimant in

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Suresh 2008 AIR

SCW 4739. So these are all matters which requires

detailed probe and the learned counsel for the appellant

seeks for an opportunity to establish his case. I do not want

to throw it away at this stage but I feel interest of justice

requires that an opportunity has to be given. Therefore I set

aside the award passed by the Tribunal without disturbing

the quantum already awarded and direct the Tribunal to

permit the owner and driver to file written statements and

then also produce documents in support of their respective

M.A.C.A. 1217 OF 2009
-:3:-

contentions. Needless to say the insurance company can

also, if necessary, file additional written statement and then

adduce evidence in support of its contentions. Thereafter the

Tribunal shall hear the matter and dispose it of in accordance

with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal

on 8.1.2010.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ul/-