IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 1179 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.1150/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- BABU, MEENATHERIL HOUSE, PRAYER SOUTH, ALUMPEEDIKA P.O., KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING AT VAZHAYIL, PATTOOR P.O., NOORANADU. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------- 1. ANILKUMAR, ANIL BHAVANAM, WARD NO.4, OCHIRA PANCHAYAT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. K.JANARDHANAN, JAYA BHAVANAM, CHANGANKULANGARA, OACHIRA P.O. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1179 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed against the order of the MACT declining to grant compensation for the reason that the appellant was a gratuitous passenger in a goods autorickshaw. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle was going to collect goods and therefore appellant going to lift the goods is entitled to compensation. Counsel for the insurance company submitted that appellant was only a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and therefore he is not covered by the policy benefits. On going through the award and the evidence, we find that goods autorickshaw had two seats in the front one of which was occupied by the appellant and he sustained injury on account of the accident caused by the autorickshaw driver who was charge sheeted for offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 IPC. The accident occurred when the autorickshaw hit behind a moving 2 truck. Normally a goods vehicle goes with goods or goes to some place to pick up goods. Therefore the case of the appellant though not supported by specific evidence that he was going to pick up goods, cannot be overruled. In the normal course, we should remand the case for giving an opportunity to the appellant to adduce specific evidence about the mission of the travel. However, for the sake of finality and since the accident took place more than 10 years back, we grant a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the appellant with direction to the insurance company to deposit the same with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of deposit. Appeal is allowed to the above extent. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk 3