IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1653 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.1500/1995 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TRIPUNITHURA, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, THIRD PARTY CLAIMS CELL, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. GIBIN PAUL, S/O. PAULOSE, ARUKAKKAL HOUSE, KANAYANNOOR, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O., PIN-682 312. 2. A.K. PAULOSE, S/O. KURIAN, ARUKAKKAL HOUSE, KANAYANNOOR, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O., PIN-682 312. 3. M.A. SAJU, S/O. ABRAHAM, MANTHRAKKAL HOUSE, KANAYANNOOR, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O., PINJ-682 312. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU - R1 TO 3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.1653 OF 2004 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Addl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)No.1500 of 1995. The claimant, who has travelling in an auto rickshaw owned by his father met with an accident and sustained injuries. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.37,500/- and also made the insurance company liable for the said claim. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. The question to be determined is whether the Tribunal was wrong in casting the liability on the insurance company. The question whether the boy was accompanying the goods carried in the auto rickshaw as the representative of the owner of the goods or the owner of the goods does not detain as much in this case for the solitary reason that the accident had taken place on 1.12.1991. The Apex Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v.Asha Rani (2003(1) KLT 165(SC)) has held that Section 95 of the old Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 and Section 147(1) of the MACA 1653/2004 -:2:- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before its amendment are in pari materia and it does not cast an obligation on the insurance company to take a statutory coverage for the owner of the goods or the person travelling as the representative of the owner of the goods. For the first time the Legislature in its wisdom thought it has to be introduced and that was done as per amendment 54/1994 which came into force on 14.11.1994. The Apex Court in the decision reported in 2003(1)KLT 165 clearly settles this proposition. Therefore as far as this case is concerned, irrespective of the question whether the boy was travelling as an owner of the goods or a representative of the owner of the goods will not make the insurance company liable because the Act only policy does not cover such a person. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company is bound to indemnify the insured is against law and therefore it has to be set aside. So far as the claimant is concerned, he is entitled to the amount awarded, but he has to realise it from his father and the driver, viz; respondents 1 and 2 in the claim application. In the result, MACA is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal so far as it relates to the insurance company is set aside and the insurance company is exonerated from the liability. The claimant may proceed against respondents 1 and 2 in the claim application for realisation MACA 1653/2004 -:3:- of the amount. The amount deposited by the insurance company as a condition for filing the appeal be reimbursed to the company on appropriate application. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-