IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 2254 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.2042/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- K.MUHAMMED, S/O ALI HAJI, KUNNATHU HOUSE, THIRURKKAD POST. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3 ----------------------------------------------- 1. IBRAHIM, S/O MUHAMMED KUTTY, PANANGANGARA HOUSE, THIRURKKAD POST. 2. K.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O KRISHNA PANICKER, KILIYIL HOUSE, ORADAMPALAM, ANGAIPPURAM POST. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PERINTHALMANNA. ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No. 2254/07 ORDER ON IA No. 2903/07 IN MACA No.2254/07 DISMISSED 3.11.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 2254 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Cla`ims Tribunal, Manjeri, in OP(MV) 2042/02. The claimant while travelling in a lorry sustained injuries on account of its overturning. Therefore the claimant filed an application for compensation. The Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs.31,550/- but exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability and directed the 2nd respondent in the claim petition to pay the amount, though it made respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition jointly and severally liable for the same. It is against that decision, the owner has come up in appeal. 2. It is attempted to be contended that the claimant was a person travelling in the lorry as the representative of the owner of the goods. Though respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance before the court below, they did not even file a written statement. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has made available before me a copy of the application filed by the claimant. In para.28 of the petition MACA No. 2254/07 2 there is absolutely no averment to the effect that he was a representative of the owner of the goods. Para.4 of the petition would show that he was a coolie and the employment would show that he is not permanently employed by anybody. So this is a case where the claimant had travelled in the lorry as a passenger, which unfortunately met with an accident resulting in sustainment of injuries to him. The only legal question to be decided in this case is whether in such case the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount. 3. There is no dispute that the policy issued is only an Act only policy. It is the settled position of law that the provisions for compensation and liability of the Insurance Company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the unamended Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are in pari materia and it is only by virtue of an amended Act 54 of 1994, which came into effect from 14.11.94, that a statutory compulsory coverage was provided to the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods. This position has been made crystal clear by the Apex court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [2003 (1) KLT 165 (SC)] . Admittedly, in this case the accident had taken place after the MACA No. 2254/07 3 amended Act. Unless the claimant or the owner is able to establish that the claimant was travelling in the lorry as the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods, the coverage under section 147 will not be available and being an Act only policy, the Insurance Company is entitled for total exoneration of the liability. This is what has been precisely done by the Tribunal applying the correct provisions of law. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. But taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the authorities to grant three months’ time for the appellant to pay the balance amount. The amount already deposited by the owner for the purpose of filing the appeal be disbursed to the claimant. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 2254/07 4