IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 56 of 2007() --------------------- OPMV.1162/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT. --------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KALAMASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIM SECTION, AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): 1 ---------------- 1. KESAVAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VADANATH, MAMALA P.O. 2. P.SASI, PUNJA VEETTIL HOUSE, SOUTH PAROOR, TRIPUNITHURA. 3. P.V.GEORGE, PEECHAMPPILLY HOUSE, MURIAMANGALAM, MAMALA P.O. 4. PURUSHAN, PADINJAREPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MAMALA, THIRUVANIYOOR. 5. N.N.NANDAKUMAR, H.NO. 42/2095, POWER HOUSE ROAD, KOCHI 18. ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO: 57/07 IN M.A.C.A. NO: 56 OF 2007 DISMISSED: 29/9/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE JJ /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 56 OF 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th September, 2008. JUDGMENT Publication against the fifth respondent produced. Service complete. 2. This appeal is preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P (MV) 1162/06. The claimant sustained injuries in an accident and the Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs.18,625/- after deducting 50% of the contributory negligence. The Tribunal found that the claimant attempted to get down from the lorry even before it was stopped and, therefore apportioned the negligence equally. 3. The Tribunal has also given a very clear finding to the effect that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger. Under the policy of insurance a gratuitous passenger is not covered. Even after the amendment of the Motor Vehilces Act under Act 54 of 1994 the only owner of the goods or the representative of owner of the goods is entitled to coverage. Therefore, being a gratuitous passenger the insurance company cannot be saddled with the MACA 56/07 2 liability. The Apex Court has also made it very clear that a pillion rider or a gratuitous passenger does not have the status of a third party so as to direct the insurance company to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the owner. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal to that extent is set aside and the claimant is entitled to realise the amount from respondents 4 and 5 in the claim application jointly and severally. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN JUDGE jj