IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1523 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.845/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE OP: ----------------------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PUNALUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT & RESPONDENT 1 & 2 IN THE OP: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. S. APPUKUTTAN PILLAI, RAJESH BHAVAN, VADAKKADATHUCAVU P.O., ERATHU VILLAGE,ADOOR TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. A. SHIBU, KOCHUVILAYIL VEEDU, KANNAMCODE MURI, ADOOR P.O., ADOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. K. BASHEER, KOCHU KANJIRA VILA SUBI MANZIL, KANNAMCODE MURI, ADOOR P.O., ADOOR VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.JOHN MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.JOHN BRITTO FOR R2 & 3 SRI.C.A.RAJEEV FOR R2 & 3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008 ALONG WITH MACA NO. 1694 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.1794/2007 IN M.A.C.A.NO.1523/2007 DISMISSED 11/08/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NOs. 1523 & 1694 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(MV) Nos.845 & 846 of 1996. Both the claimants were travelling in a goods vehicle which met with an accident and the Tribunal awarded them compensation and directed the insurance company to indemnify them. Aggrieved by that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the insurance company would contend that they were not owners of the goods or representatives of the owners of the goods so as to be attracted under Section 147(1) of the M.V.Act. Admittedly the accident had taken place in the year 1996. under Section 95 of 1939 M.V.Act and u/s 147 of the M.V.Act of 1988, as it stood prior to the amendment, these two sections are in pary meteria and it has been held in Asha Rani's case, (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani M.A.C.A. Nos. 1523 & 1694 OF 2007 -:2:- 2003 (1) KLT 165) that those provisions do not cover owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods. By amendment Act 54 of 1994, the legislature incorporated an addition whereby an owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods also would come within the statutory coverage envisaged under Section 147 of the M.V.Act. Therefore, in order to come within the same, the persons claiming compensation have to establish that either they were the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods as contemplated under Section 147. In this case it appears that the claimant contend that one Sunny has purchased the goods and these persons were travelling in the lorry as representative of Mr.Sunny thereby becoming the representative of the owner of the goods entitled to get statutory coverage. The insurance company had denied it and they contend for the position that they were gratuitous passenger who are not covered by the Act. Strangely, the claimant did not mount the box and did not give any evidence to prove that they are M.A.C.A. Nos. 1523 & 1694 OF 2007 -:3:- the representatives of the owners of the goods. The learned counsel for the claimant would submit that if an opportunity is given they will be able to establish the same. So I do not want to deprive them an opportunity to let in evidence, at the same time the insurance company also can be permitted to rebut the same by adducing evidence. The Tribunal has entered into a finding that the premium paid towards the driver and the cleaner would cover these persons' liability as well. It cannot be correct. It is with reference to the specific individuals and nobody has got a case that they were the driver or the cleaner employed by the owner of the vehicle and therefore such a finding does not appear to be correct and it has only to be vacated. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the question of the status of the claimants and the parties are permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and thereafter the Tribunal shall decide the question in accordance with the case law rendered M.A.C.A. Nos. 1523 & 1694 OF 2007 -:4:- by the Apex Court. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.9.08. The amount deposited under Section 173 shall remain in tact and ultimately it be disbursed to the person entitled. The MACAs are disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-