IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 562 of 2007()
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NAMBI, S/O.VELU,
... Respondent
2. JOHNY, S/O.JOHNSON, C/O.C.L.OUSEPH,
3. C.L.OUSEPH,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :18/12/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J
=====================
MACA No.562 OF 2007
=====================
Dated this the 18th day of December 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)No.1167/2001. The claimant
sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a
compensation of Rs.29,200/-. The insurance company was directed to pay
the amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up
in appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the insurance company as well as
the counsel for the owner of the vehicle. The contention before the court
below by the insurance company is to the effect that the person was
travelling in the platform of a goods autorickshaw and therefore he is not
covered by the statutory policy issued under Section 147 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the insurance company would contend
before me relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in National
Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma and others(2008) 1 SCC 423)
that “it is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the
MACA 562/2007 -:2:-
person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle”. Further the Apex Court has
also very clearly held that in a goods autorickshaw, the seat is not to be
shared by the driver with anybody. I leave it there for other reasons to be
discussed below. There is a specific contention for the owner in this case
that he had transferred the vehicle in favour of one Simon, son of Ouseph on
1.12.1998. The accident had taken place on 23.3.2001. Now it is important
to find out who was the owner of the vehicle especially for the reason that
the insurance company contends for the position that it is not liable to
indemnify the owner for the reason that the policy does not cover the risk of
the claimant. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not raise any issue and also did
not answer the question raised in the written statement and generally
observed that since being a registered owner, the 3rd respondent in the
appeal cannot get absolved from the liability. It has to be remembered that
when there is a dispute regarding the coverage of the vehicle, it is important
to have the person to whom the vehicle is said to be sold and therefore
really it will go into the root of the matter and so the matter requires
interference.
Therefore I set aside the award under challenge and remit the case
back to the same Tribunal with a direction either to the claimant or to the
insurance company to implead Simon and thereafter consider the question
MACA 562/2007 -:3:-
afresh regarding the coverage or breach of policy conditions and on whom
does the liability lie to pay compensation to the claimant. Parties are
directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.1.2009.
MACA is disposed of accordingly.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
Cdp/-