IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 778 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.1921/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT. --------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P.CELL, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENT(S): PETITIOENRS 1 TO 4 & 1ST RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- 1. C.VALSALA, W/O.LATE PANKAJAKSHAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, KARIMBIL HOUSE, P.O.CHERLERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. C.VIPIN,S/O.LATE PANKAJAKSHAN, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, REP. BY MOTHER VALSALA. DO. 3. C.PRAVEEN, S/O.LATE PANKAJAKSHAN, AGEDABOUT 8 YEARS, REP. BYMOTHER VALSALA, DO. 4. P.PARVATHI AMMA, W/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, DO. DO. 5. M.K.MOHANAN, SREEDEVI NILAYAM, P.O.CHELERI, VIA, KANNADIPPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 604. ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R1 TO 5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.778 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Challenge is against the award passed by the MACT holding that the Insurance Company is liable for compensation for the death of one Mr.Pankajakshan whose legal heirs the respondents are. Counsel for the appellant relied on decision of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V. CHOLLETI BHARATAMMA AND OTHERS (2008(1) SCC 423) and contended that passengers travelling in platform of goods vehicle are not covered by Act policy. However, counsel for the respondents submitted that accident occurred when the driver rashly took the vehicle while loading of goods was going on. We have gone through the award and we find that MACT clearly found from the evidence of the eye witness that the deceased was loading the goods in the truck while others were helping from outside. It is at that time the driver moved the vehicle forward and the deceased fell down and sustained injuries which led to his death. The conditions in the policy are referred to in the award. It is specified in the policy that it does not cover use for carrying passengers in 2 the vehicle except employees other than driver not exceeding 6 in number coming under the purview of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It is obvious that six persons referred to therein are not the people accommodated in the cabin and all such persons employed in loading are covered by the policy, if they are employed by the truck transporting the goods. There is nothing to indicate as to whom for the deceased was loading the goods. A carrier undertaking transport of goods can arrange for loading by itself or the owner of goods may arrange for loading or independent agency may be engaged for loading. In the absence of any contrary evidence, we have to go by the evidence adduced by the claimants which prove that the deceased at the time of accident was engaged in loading work and he fell down when the vehicle was moved before completion of the loading. We, therefore, hold that the MACT was justified in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company in terms of the conditions of the policy. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms