IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1188 of 2005() ------------------------------------ OPMV.856/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., TRIVANDRUM NOW REPRESESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.JACOB MATHEW P. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O. MOHAMMED KASIM, POOVANNATHUM VILA, PATHIRICKAL P.O., EDATHARA. 2. SANTHOSH, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, NEAR THOTTUKKAPEEDIKA, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. NAVAS. P., S/O. PEERUMOHAMMED RAWTHER, KARUMMOODUPURAYIDAM VEEDU, PATHIRICKAL P.O., EDATHARA. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY - R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2181/2005 IN MACA.NO.1188/2005 DISMISSED 19/06/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1188 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur, in OP(MV) 856/00. The Insurance Company is the appellant before this court. The claimant in the case was a driver in a mini lorry which had met with the accident on 13.6.98. So far as passengers in a mini lorry is concerned unless there is special coverage the statute does not cover the risk unless he is the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of goods in view of the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect on 14.11.94. In this case there is no case for the claimant that he was either the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods accompanying the goods. Therefore, he is not statutorily covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Insurance Company, when it has issued an Act only policy, is not liable to cover any other persons other than the one coming under section 147(1). The status of the claimant is only that of a gratuitous passenger and such a person is MACA No.1188/05 2 not covered under the policy. Therefore, there is no policy to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and therefore the Insurance Company is to be excluded from the liability. The award of the Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from respondents 1 and 2 in the claim application is incorrect in law which is liable to be modified. Therefore, the award under challenge is modified and the Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability. The right of the claimant is confined to proceed against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally for the amount, which he is entitled to. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1188/05 3 MACA No.1188/05 4