IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 1053 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.977/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. CALICUT NOW REP. BY ITS DEPUTYMNAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA" HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER &RESPONDENTS 1 &2: --------------- 1. ARU @ ARUMUGHAN, S/O. CHATHAN, KORATHUPARAMBU HOUSE, VADAVANNUR.P.O., CHITTUR TALUK. 2. ASHARAF, S/O.ALI MOHAMMED, KODIKUTHI PARAMBU HOUSE,AANDIYARKUNU POST, KOTTAPPURAM, PULIKKAL MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. VIJAYA MADHAVAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, PATHIYADIYIL VEEDU, CHERPLASSERY, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.C.RAGHAVAN FOR R1 SMT.P.K.RADHIKA FOR R2 & 3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.NO.1367/2009 IN MACA.NO.1053/2009 DISMISSED 3.11.2009. SD/= M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.1053 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal,Palakkad in OP(MV)No.977/2002. The claimant, a loading and unloading worker by profession, was traveling in a lorry, which was loaded with bamboo, by sitting on the top of the bamboo along with others and due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in injuries to the claimant. The Tribunal, awarded a compensation of Rs.90,987/= and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. The policy issued is only an Act only policy. But by the payment of premium, those persons, who are employees of the owner of the lorry, are covered under the policy. There is no case for the claimant that he is the employee of the lorry. When he is not the employee of the lorry, payment of premium for coverage of the employees of the : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.1053 OF 2009 owner of the lorry cannot be extended to him. 3. Then the next question will be whether he is entitled to the statutory coverage prescribed under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which lays down that the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods travelling in a vehicle is to be covered by an Act only policy. Unfortunately, the claimant has no case that he is the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods. When he was cross examined before the Tribunal, he had clearly and categorically admitted that: 4. So, it is clear from the evidence that he is neither the employee of the lorry owner nor the employee of the owner of the goods. His status can be only that of a gratuitous passenger. After the pronouncement of the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd.v. Asha Rani [(2003 (1)KLT 165(SC)] a gratuitous passenger is not covered under the policy. It has been discussed in that : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.1053 OF 2009 judgment that prior to the Amendment Act 54 of 1994, which came into force on 14.11.1994, no person travelling in a goods vehicle was covered by the terms of the conditions. By the introduction of a clause under Section 147 whereby the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods also become entitled to the statutory coverage under Section 147. But unfortunately in this case, the claimant has no case that he comes under such category. Therefore, the benefit under Section 147 cannot be extended to him. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Cholleti Bharathamma (2008 (1) SCC 423)) in para 19 decided as follows: “It is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle”. 6. Admittedly, the person herein was not traveling in the cabin of the vehicle, but was travelling on the load of the vehicle, which also disentitles him from claiming any compensation from the insurance company. : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.1053 OF 2009 Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the policy covers the risk of the claimant is against his own evidence and the insurance company has to be totally exonerated from the liability and the claimant is at liberty to proceed against respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition jointly and severally for the amount awarded by the Tribunal. If any amount is deposited by the insurance company, it shall be reimbursed to them and in case the claimant had withdrawn that amount, it can be realized by the insurance company from the owner of the vehicle by executing the very same award. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : M.A.C.A.No.1053 OF 2009