IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 589 of 2006 ------------------------------- OP(MV).NO.605/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA. .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- ALAUDDEEN, S/O. ISMAIL, AGED 43 YEARS, SHAKEELA MANZIL, MUNNARKARA, KDH VILLAGE, PWD SATHRAM, MUNNAR. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL, SRI.SANU MATHEW, SRI.TIGINS GEORGE (MUVATTUPUZHA). RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. C. MURUGAN, S/O. CHELLAM, PAZHATHOTTAM WARD NO.11/137, ELLAPETTY P.O. 2. EDWARD, S/O. RAMASWAMY, CHIKKANATTU ESTATE, HOUSE NO.40, KULAMANK DIVISION, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., PANKAJ BUILDING, MSA ROAD, MUNNAR. R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 589 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)605/02. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident. It is his case that while he was travelling in a lorry bearing Reg.No.KLQ/752 due to the negligent driving of the 2nd respondent had overturned resulting in injuries to him. Unfortunately the details and narration of the facts are not clearly made in column No.1.28 of the petition. The Tribunal found that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the 2nd respondent but dismissed the case on the ground that the accident occurred while the petitioners were travelling in a goods carriage. It relied on the principles laid down in Asha Rani's case, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani 2003 (1) KLT 165 and thereafter dismissed the case. M.A.C.A. 589 OF 2006 -:2:- 2. I am afraid that the approach of the Tribunal is totally erroneous. At the out set the Tribunal should not have dismissed the application for the reason that the owner and driver are also tortuously liable for the act and even applying the principles in Asha Rani's case at the most what can be done is exoneration of the insurance company from the liability in view of the provisions of the M.V. Act. Therefore the award requires interference. 3. Secondly it does not appear to be a cooked up case for the reason that immediately after the accident the claimants were taken to the hospital where the first information statement is recorded wherein it is specifically stated that they took a lorry for hire and while they were returning back after purchasing and loading fish, before reaching destination the lorry overt turned resulting in injuries to them. A perusal of the scene mahazar would also reveal that the fish and fish baskets were seen scattered at the place of accident. It has to be always remembered that men may lie but circumstances will never lie and in a motor M.A.C.A. 589 OF 2006 -:3:- accident case it is not really correct to insist for leak proof pleadings just like in a case of easement or other civil law. It is a social welfare legislation intended to confer benefit on the motor accident victims and on account of the lack of pleading by a person he should not be thrown out on technical ground. So I give an opportunity to the claimant to amend the pleading or even if it is not amended I direct the Tribunal to look into the entire facts and circumstances of the case and decide the case. 4. Now, on the question of law, it is true that under the provisions of the M.V. Act 1939 and unamended S.147 of the M.V. Act 1988 are in pari materia and the Apex Court in the decision reported in Asha Rani's case held that it does not cover an owner of the goods or a representative of the owner of the goods accompanying the goods. But by virtue of the amendment Act 54 of 1994 it subsequently have been included u/s 147 of the Act and it requires statutory, compulsory coverage of such persons as well. So the point to be decided in this case is whether the claimant in this case M.A.C.A. 589 OF 2006 -:4:- was the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods accompanying the goods at the time of the accident and as admittedly the accident had taken place after 14.11.94 if he satisfies that he was the owner accompanying the goods he will be liable to be indemnified by the insurance company as well. Therefore with these directions the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit the parties to amend the pleadings, adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 27.12.08. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-