IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 54 of 2005(C) --------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.1795/2000 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA. .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- MUHAMMED V.A. @ KOCHU MUHAMMED, S/O. ANTHRU, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIRATTAKATTIL HOUSE, ADOOPARAMBU, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SMT.A.S.BEENU, SRI.M.V.BIPIN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. V.H. SHAJI, S/O. HAMEEDU, VARIPURATHUKUDY @ VARIPURATHU HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. UNNIKRISHNAN, SREEKRISHNA BHAVAN, ARAKULAM P.O., MOOLAMATTOM. 4. P.K. MOHANAN, S/O. KRISHNAPILLAI, VADAKKEPARAMBIL, ARAKULAM P.O., MOOLAMATTOM. 5. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PULIMOOTTIL SHOPPING ARCADE, THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R5, ADV. SRI.V.P.K.PANICKER FOR R2. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2008, ALONG WITH M.A.C.A. NOS. 75/2005 & 76/2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C..A.NOS: 54, 75 & 76 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th September, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy, J. In these three appeals, the main contention raised is that the Insurance Company was exonerated by the Tribunal erroneously. Claimants were injured in the accident while they were travelling in the cabin of a goods vehicle. In the insurance policy there was coverage of three persons, driver and two others. Group of claims filed by five passengers were considered by the Tribunal. Driver was not injured. With regard to the two persons who suffered very serious injuries, they were held to be covered by the policy and the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount as provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. For the other three injured persons, the owner was held responsible for payment of compensation. In the policy it is specifically stated that the number of persons covered are only three, including the driver. Appellants are headload workers. They are not third parties. The Honourable Supreme Court has very clearly stated that third parties, passengers and employees are all different categories. The employees who are passengers will get coverage of insurance only if they are separately covered by the policy of insurance. Since claimants M.A.C.A.NOS: 54/05 ETC. 2 were not covered by the insurance policy, the liability was directed to be paid by the owner of the vehicle. Considering the nature of injuries, we are of the opinion that just and reasonable compensation is awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Hence all the three appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. J.B.KOSHY Judge THOMAS P. JOSEPH Judge jj K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: