IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 983 of 2008(F) ------------------------------- OPMV.1215/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ------------------------------------------- 1. JALEEL, S/O.SAIDALAVI, PADINJARETHIL VEEDU, AMBALAPPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 512.(DRIVER OF KL-9J-2529- MAHINDARA PICKUP VAN) 2. SAIDALAVI, S/O.UNNENKUTTY, PADINHARETHIL VEEDU, AMBALAPPARA, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 512. (OWNER OF KL-9J-2529-MAHINDRA PICK UP VAN ) BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & 3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. HARIDASAN.V.P, S.O.,VASUDEVAN, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KARATTUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, OTTAPALAM BRANCH, P.O.OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT (INSURER 0F KL-9/K-2529 MAHINDRA PICKUP VAN). ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 984 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NOs. 983 & 984 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam in O.P.(MV) Nos.1215/05 and 1202/04. The facts in O.P.(MV) Nos.1202/05 is to the effect that when the petitioners were travelling in a pick up van bearing Reg.No.KL-9J-2529 and when it reached the place of accident the vehicle capsized and resulted in injuries. That is the same case with the other claimant also. In these cases the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company and directed respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition to pay the compensation. It is aggrieved by that decision the claimants have come up in appeal. 2. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that these persons were travelling as representatives of the owner of the goods and were travelling in the platform of the pick up van and therefore they are entitled to be covered under the statutory coverage envisaged u/s 147 of the M.V. M.A.C.A. 983 & 984 OF 2008 -:2:- Act. Under the 1939 M.V. Act and under 1988 of the M.V. Act the provisions are considered to be pari materia and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Asha Rani case, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani 2003 (1) KLT 165 held that those provisions do not cover the risk of an owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods. By virtue of the amendment to the M.V. Act by Act 54 of 1994 these two category of persons have been brought under the compulsory insurance coverage and thereafter a person who travels in a goods vehicle as the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods is liable to the covered under the Act. 3. Here is a case where we find 11 persons were travelling in a platform of a pick up van. These 11 persons cannot be the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods. Further the Apex Court has made it clear owner of the goods means a person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle. It is not known whether in a pick up van there is additional seat provided for a passenger and if it M.A.C.A. 983 & 984 OF 2008 -:3:- is not so the Apex Court has further held that if there is only one seat for the driver then he cannot share that seat with another person and therefore that person cannot be considered to be the owner of the goods. As far as this case is concerned it is crystal clear from the materials available that 11 persons were travelling in a platform of a pick up van. By any stretch of imagination they cannot be considered as owners of the goods or representatives of the owner of the goods. Therefore the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that they are not covered under the statutory coverage of the policy u/s 147 of the M.V.Act. In the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma (2008 (1) SCC 423) in paragraph 19 the Apex Court made it very clear that “It is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle.” Admittedly these two persons were not travelling in the cabin of the vehicle but were only travelling in the platform of the vehicle and therefore they cannot be brought under the coverage u/s 147 M.A.C.A. 983 & 984 OF 2008 -:4:- of the M.V. Act. From these discussions I find that there is no illegality committed by the Tribunal in arriving at the decision by exonerating the insurance company and therefore the appeals lack merit and they are dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-