IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 562 of 2007() -------------------------------- OPMV.1167/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT. ---------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NAMBI, S/O.VELU, CHEMMAMKALA COLONY, MARUTHAMKODU, KUZHITHARA, KANYAKUMARI. 2. JOHNY, S/O.JOHNSON, C/O.C.L.OUSEPH, CHEENIKKAL HOUSE, NEDUPUZHA, THRISSUR. 3. C.L.OUSEPH, -DO- ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN FOR R3 SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.562 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of December 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)No.1167/2001. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.29,200/-. The insurance company was directed to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the insurance company as well as the counsel for the owner of the vehicle. The contention before the court below by the insurance company is to the effect that the person was travelling in the platform of a goods autorickshaw and therefore he is not covered by the statutory policy issued under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the insurance company would contend before me relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma and others(2008) 1 SCC 423) that “it is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the MACA 562/2007 -:2:- person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle”. Further the Apex Court has also very clearly held that in a goods autorickshaw, the seat is not to be shared by the driver with anybody. I leave it there for other reasons to be discussed below. There is a specific contention for the owner in this case that he had transferred the vehicle in favour of one Simon, son of Ouseph on 1.12.1998. The accident had taken place on 23.3.2001. Now it is important to find out who was the owner of the vehicle especially for the reason that the insurance company contends for the position that it is not liable to indemnify the owner for the reason that the policy does not cover the risk of the claimant. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not raise any issue and also did not answer the question raised in the written statement and generally observed that since being a registered owner, the 3rd respondent in the appeal cannot get absolved from the liability. It has to be remembered that when there is a dispute regarding the coverage of the vehicle, it is important to have the person to whom the vehicle is said to be sold and therefore really it will go into the root of the matter and so the matter requires interference. Therefore I set aside the award under challenge and remit the case back to the same Tribunal with a direction either to the claimant or to the insurance company to implead Simon and thereafter consider the question MACA 562/2007 -:3:- afresh regarding the coverage or breach of policy conditions and on whom does the liability lie to pay compensation to the claimant. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.1.2009. MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-