IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 10 of 2008(A) --------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.498/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR. .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O SANKARAN, MUNDAYOORVALAPPIL HOUSE, MUTHUVARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. JAICO T. PAUL, THEKKANATH HOUSE, MUTHUVARA P.O., PUZHAKKAL, THRISSUR. 2. MANOJ, S.O.VELU, POOTHOPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTHUVARA.P.O., PUZHAKKAL, THRISSUR. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SMT.M.LALITHA NAIR FOR R3. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.10 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of October 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)No.498 of 2002. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.37,000/- and the liability is fixed on the first respondent to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the appeal is preferred. 2. The main point canvassed before me is regarding the liability of the insurance company to pay the amount. It appears that the insurance company has taken the contention that the claimant was only a gratuitous passenger in a lorry and the policy issued was only a policy to cover 3rd party risk. Under the amended Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a person accompanying the goods as the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods is covered by the policy. The whole question that arises for determination is whether the claimant was travelling in the lorry as the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods. There is a pleading in column 28 of the contract that he was proceeding in a MACA 10/2008 -:2:- lorry with agricultural products from Thrissur to Thrissur market. The Tribunal has held that there is no pleading. It is true that the pleading is not very specific. But one cannot shut out the whole case holding that there is no pleading. Some documents also will be available to prove that he had hired the lorry for transporting the vegetables. Learned counsel would contend that if an opportunity is given, better evidence could be produced to decide the matter. Therefore, I am inclined to grant an opportunity. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for the specific purpose of proving whether the claimant was travelling in the lorry as the owner of the goods and for that purpose, the insurance company as well as the claimant are permitted to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 2.12.2008. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-