IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 1520 of 2009(C) ------------------------------------- [O.P(MV).NO.183/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA] .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- ALOSHIOUS,S/O.CHACKO,AGED 45 YEARS, THAZHATHEDATHU HOUSE, KARIMANNOOR KARA, KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANJAY, SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. AZIZ,S/O.ABDUL KHADER,MANJUMATTATHIL HOUSE,KARIMANNOOR KARA,KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,REP BY ITS MANAGER,THODUPUZHA BRANCH. R2 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1520 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in OP(MV)No.183/2005. The claimant while loading straw in a mini lorry owned by the first respondent, it is alleged that due to rash moving of the vehicle, he fell down and sustained injuries. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.50,213/= and directed the amount to be paid by the first respondent. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal challenging exoneration of the insurance company from the liability. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The learned counsel for the insurance company had made available before me the entire file and the learned counsel for the appellant had also effectively argued the case. 3. It is true that in the claim petition it is stated that the claimant is dealing with vulcanization of tubes and repair of tyres. In the first information statement given by him before the police he has stated that he was having cattle and : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1520 OF 2009 therefore, he had hired vehicle of the first respondent for the purchase of straw and that while he along with others were loading the straw, the driver moved the vehicle, which resulted in fall and sustainment of injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend before me that this fact would reveal that the claimant was the owner of the goods that was being loaded in the vehicle. Therefore, he would submit that he should have coverage under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As decided in [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (2003 (1) KLT 165 SC)] subsequent to the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act by Act 54 of 1994, the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods carried in the vehicle are covered by the terms and conditions of the statutory policy. Therefore he would contend that being the owner of the goods, he was loading the straw and he would be entitled to be covered. But the position is made very clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma (2008(1) SCC 423) and in para -19 the Hon'ble Apex Court : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1520 OF 2009 held that it is now well settled that owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle. So a person standing on the platform or travelling in the platform of the vehicle are not covered. Suppose status of the person is considered as loading and unloading worker, then also the position my not be different in view of the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Alekutty Antony (2009 (4) KLT 130). In that a Division Bench held that headload workers travelling in the goods vehicle outside the cabin and on the platform cannot be treated as representatives of the owner of goods. So until and unless the owner or representative of the owner of the goods are travelling in the cabin of a vehicle where there is a provision for accommodating the passengers, the insurance company shall not be liable under the terms and conditions of an act only policy. Admittedly here it is an act only policy and since claimant was travelling not in the cabin of the vehicle, he cannot be granted the benefit as the owner of the goods and therefore I cannot find fault with the Tribunal in exonerating the insurance company from the liability : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.1520 OF 2009 and making the first respondent liable. Therefore the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 5 : M.A.C.A.NO.1520 OF 2009 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.883 OF 1996 ............................................. 13th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T