IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 295 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.116/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- ELDHOSE MATHEW, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. P.V.MATHAI, PADICKAKUDIYIL HOUSE, SENAPATHY P.O., SANTHANPARA (VIA) BY ADV. SRI.B.SAINU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. WILSON THOMAS, CHITTADIYIL HOUSE, SENAPATHY P.O., SANTHANPARA. 2. P.B.SASI, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KALLIMALY, MAMMATTIKANAM P.O., 3. ORIENTED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MATTANCHERRY BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR FOR R1,2 SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH FOR R1,2 SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 295 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. This appeal is filed by the claimant who got an award for Rs.2,45,506/- against respondents 1 and 2 who are owner and driver of the mini vehicle involved in the accident. The main prayer in the appeal is for a direction to the insurance company to pay the compensation awarded. However, counsel for the insurance company submitted that appellant-claimant was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and under the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the Tribunal, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle unless he was accompanying his goods. Even though appellant attempted to prove that he was accompanying goods, namely, pepper, the appellant's case was found to be bogus based on evidence and contents of FI statement given by another person who was a similar passenger in the vehicle at the time 2 of the accident. We find no ground to interfere with the award of Tribunal exonerating the insurance company as appeallant was not accompanying the goods as claimed by him. So far as the prayer for enhancement of compensation is concerned, we find the award is quite reasonable warranting no interference. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V. K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3