IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 1492 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.233/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT. --------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, PALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND R1 & R2. -------------------------------------------------- 1. PRINCE T.P., KOTHATTUPARACKAL, RAMAPURAM. 2. SHEEBA SHIJU, KADUTHODIL (H), ANTHINADU POST, KOLLAPPALLY. 3. ROY @ ROY ANTONY, VADAKKEVEETTIL, ALANADU POST, BHARANANGNANAM. ADV. SRI.MATHEW SKARIA FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.1492 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Pala in OP(MV)No.233/2005. The claimant while travelling in a Maruti van sustained injuries and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.18,000/=. The Tribunal negatived the contention of the insurance company regarding its non-liability and directed it to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the claimant. The learned counsel for the insurance company would contend before me that, a perusal of para-9 of the award would indicate that, the claimant has stated that he had no job at the time of the accident. Therefore, he would contend that his case that he was accompanying the goods of the owner cannot be accepted and since the vehicle cover only by an Act only policy, it will not cover the risk of the claimant. : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.1492 OF 2008 3. On the contra, the learned counsel for the claimant would contend that he was really engaged in transport of waste materials and therefore he is covered. The claimant had given a statement to the police from the hospital on 7.1.2005 i.e., immediately after the accident. The learned counsel for the claimant had made available a copy of that statement to me. A reading of that statement would show that the claimant is engaged as a worker in a super market which belongs to Kaduthodil people. According to him, till a week prior to the accident, he was working in a grocery shop and on the date of the accident he has stated that he is working in that super market. It is also specifically stated that his work is to dress the chicken and after doing the same, as per the directions of the owner, along with the waste of the chicken and fish materials, he was travelling in the vehicle. It was at that time, the accident had taken place. So it is very clear that the accident had taken place while the claimant as the representative of the owner of the goods was travelling in the vehicle to unload the waste materials to a third person as directed by the owner. When it is so, by : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.1492 OF 2008 virtue of the amended provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 54 of 94, the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods is covered by the statutory policy and therefore, the insurance company is liable. 4. I am informed that an appeal is pending for considering the quantum about which I need not consider in this case as not being the subject matter. On the point that had arisen in this appeal, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.1492 OF 2008