IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 1354 of 2008(G) -------------------------------- OPMV.1650/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLAM NOW REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAKUNDAN, OTTATHENGIL VEEDU, VELLANATHURUTHU WARD CHERIYAZHEEKKAL PO., ALAPPAD VILLAGE KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 2. PODIMON @ VINOD, MEENATHEL, VELANATHURUTHU ,CHERIYAZHEEKKAL PO., KARUNAGAPPALY. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2008, ALONG WITH MACA 1357/08 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.1611 OF 2008 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 1354 OF 2008 DISMISSED 2/9/08 SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. [ True Copy ] P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NOS. 1354, 1357, 1367 & 1373 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam in O.P.(MV) Nos.1650/01, 1654/01, 1651/01 and 1653/01. In all these cases the claimants were awarded a compensation and the insurance company was directed to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the owner-cum-driver. The contention raised by the insurance company was to the effect that the persons were travelling in a goods vehicle which was only having an Act only policy and therefore they were not covered by the policy and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount at all. Now the position is well settled that the statutory policy covers only the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods. After the amendment to the M.V.Act by Act 54 of 1994 it has been succinctly laid down in Asha Rani's case(New India M.A.C.A. No.1354/08 & Con. cases -:2:- Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani 2003 (1) KLT 165) that S.95 of the old M.V. Act and S.147 of the M.V.Act prior to amendment stood in pari materia and both do not cover even the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods. The Tribunal has definitely entered into a finding that the persons were travelling as gratuitous passengers and they were not under the category of the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods. Therefore, it has to be held that passengers in the goods vehicle have the status of only gratuitous passengers and a policy issued to such a goods vehicle does not cover the passengers travelling in that vehicle. It means that the terms of the policy does not cover such persons. Liability to pay and get it reimbursed arises only when there is a liability to pay but there is a violation of the breach of the policy condition. Here the question involved is not the violation of the breach of policy condition but the fundamental factum of non- coverage issued under the policy. Therefore the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay the amount at all and M.A.C.A. No.1354/08 & Con. cases -:3:- they are entitled to get total exoneration of the liability. Therefore, the awards under challenge are modified and the insurance company is totally exonerated from the liability and the claimants in the cases are entitled to claim the amount only from the 2nd respondent who is the owner- -cum-driver in all the above petitions. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-