IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1411 of 2006() ----------------------- O.P.(MV).NO.647/2002 OF THE MACT, PALA APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: --------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PLAZA, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND CLAIMANT: ------------- 1. JAMES JOSEPH @ CHACKOCHAN, POOVATHUNKAL HOUSE, KOOVAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SUNNY JACOB, EDACKATTU HOUSE, KULAPURAM, KOOVAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. MATHEW VARGHESE, NELLIYANIYIL HOUSE, KOOVAPPALLY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JACOB FOR R2 SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. FOR R3 SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R2 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2008 ALONG WITH C.O NO.33 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO.1411 OF 2006 (F) & CROSS OBJECTION.NO.33 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance company against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in directing to pay the amount awarded to the claimants and recover it from the insured. According to the Insurance company, since the claimant was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, he is not entitled to coverage at all and it should not be asked to deposit the amount. A written statement was filed stating that no premium was paid for covering the gratuitous passenger. The owner filed cross objection stating that in fact premium was actually paid to the gratuitous passenger. We have gone through the insurance policy. An additional premium of Rs.50/- is paid for liability M.A.C.A.NO.1411 OF 2006 (F) & CROSS OBJECTION.NO.33 OF 2008 2 for one non fare paying employee. There is no case that the claimant who sustained injuries in the accident was an employee of the owner of the vehicle insured and there is no case for the Insurance company that he was a fare paying passenger. Therefore, the claimant is squarely covered under the policy. The contention of the appellant is that when additional premium is paid for non fare paying passengers, it should be proved that he was travelling in the goods vehicle as the owner or the agent of the owner of the goods. It is the case of the claimant that he was travelling because he used to purchase latex for one Thomas Jacob, proprietor of M/s.Edackattu Agencies. Ext.A7 certificate issued by him was also produced. Merely because Ext.A7 was not proved by examining the witnesses, who issued it, tribunal did not accept that. Ext.A7 was not seriously objected to when it was marked. Specific coverage was issued for non fare paying non employee passenger when premium was accepted. The burden is on the Insurance company to show that the M.A.C.A.NO.1411 OF 2006 (F) & CROSS OBJECTION.NO.33 OF 2008 3 claimant was not covered under the policy. Ext.A7 was produced. That was proved by PW1. There was no contrary evidence. In any event, we are of the view that one non fare paying passenger was specifically covered as per the terms of the policy and in view of the acceptance of the premium by the Insurance company, Insurance company is liable to pay the amount. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Insurance company, and in view of the specific coverage, we dismiss the appeal and allow the cross objection. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 26th May, 2008