IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 2643 of 2009() ---------------------------------- OPMV.2078/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ T.R.RAJESH,AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.T.N.RAVINDRAN,LAKSHMI MANDIRAM,ELAMAKKARA.PO, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-26. BY ADVS.MR.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI MR.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. P.J.THOMAS,S/O.JOSEPH,PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,KALOOR.PO,KOCHI-17. 2. K.A.JOY,S/O.ANTHAPPAN,KANNAMPILLY HOUSE, EAST OF PULAYAMPILLY DEVI TEMPLE, CHALIKKAVATTOM. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, JOSE TRUST BUILDING, CONTROL CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-15. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2643 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in OP(MV)No.2078/2001. It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling in a petty auto rickshaw, due to the over speed by the driver, the auto rickshaw overturned, resulting in injuries to him.The Tribunal fixed a compensation of Rs.26,250/= and exonerated the insurance company from the liability on the ground that there is total breach of the policy conditions. The learned Tribunal had relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Suresh( 2008 (4) KLT 552 SC) The Hon'ble Apex Court held in para-13 as follows: ”If the claimant had not been travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods, he shall not be covered by the policy of the insurance. In any view of the matter, in a three wheeler goods carriage, the driver could not have allowed anybody else to share his seat. No other person whether as a passenger or as a owner of the vehicle is supposed to share the seat of the driver. Violation of the condition of the contract of insurance, therefore, is approved”. : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2643 OF 2009 2. Since the statutory policy under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act covers only the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods, who can be accommodated in a vehicle when the vehicle does not have such an accommodative seat, it goes without saying that such persons will not be attracted under the statutory liability mentioned under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, in the light of the Apex Court decision and Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it has to be held that the insurance company has to be exonerated from the liability. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the Tribunal and so, the appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.2643 OF 2009