IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 460 of 2007(D) ---------------------------- OPMV.1435/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S):/2ND RESPONDENT. --------------------------------------- P.K.SAJEEV, INDIAN OIL DEALER, ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 561, NOW RESIDING AT PEECHAKARA HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2. -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHIBU ABRAHAM, KUZHIKALAYIL HOUSE, THANKALAM KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O. 2. SHAJU P.K., S/O.PAULOSE, PEECHAKKARA HOUSE, NELLIKUZHI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., CARMEL CENTRE, MUNNAR. ADV. SRI. P.G. GANAPPAN ADV. SRI.M.C.ANTONY FOR R1 & R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO.460 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 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) 1435/03. It is the case of the claimant that he was travelling in a tanker lorry when it met with an accident which resulted in injuries to him. According to him he was an accountant having a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. The insurance company contended that being a passenger in a goods vehicle the claimant is not insured by the policy and therefore exonerated the insurance company from the liability. It is against that decision the owner of the vehicle has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. Learned counsel for the appellant strongly contended before me that the claimant was a person travelling in a goods vehicle as the representative of the owner of the goods and therefore he is covered under the M.A.C.A. 460 OF 2007 -:2:- policy as it is issued subsequent to the introduction of Act 54 of 1994 which incorporated the statutory coverage of the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods. It can be seen that there is absolutely no pleading to the effect that he was travelling either as the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods and therefore at this distance of time such a plea cannot be entertained. Further the appellant did not contest the case also before the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of Division Bench reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Suresh (2006 (4) KLT 333). In that case the Division Bench held that a person when travels back in the same vehicle after unloading the goods will continue to have the status of a person carried in a vehicle and therefore held that the insurance company was liable. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Supreme Court of India and in the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Suresh 2008 AIR SCW 4739, the M.A.C.A. 460 OF 2007 -:3:- Apex Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the vehicle involved was a three wheeler goods carriage it did not contain a seat for anybody other than the driver and sharing of the seat by another person is against the provisions of the M.V. Act and therefore exonerated the insurance company from the liability. There is also an observation in paragraph 10 that “The High Court, therefore, may be correct that the owner of the goods would be covered in terms of the said provision.” So far as this case is concerned there is no case for even the claimant that he was travelling as a person representing the owner of the goods. Therefore this cannot be entertained at this stage. 4. The next question is regarding the coverage. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the policy covers the risk of three persons and such three persons will take in the present claimant also and therefore there is coverage. It is a point that requires consideration on the production of the policy as well as the terms and M.A.C.A. 460 OF 2007 -:4:- conditions of the policy. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the said question and the Tribunal is directed to consider whether the policy covers the risk of three persons and whether the claimant would be taken in those three persons and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. Since the amount is already paid to the claimant the junction of the claimant need not be insisted and the matter can be heard in the presence of owner and the insurance company. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 6.3.09. Appellant is permitted to file written statement and produce documents in support of their contentions. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-