IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 1063 of 2010() --------------------- OPMV.1178/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD ................. APPELLANT / 1ST RESPONDENT (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE IN CLAIM PETITION) : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BALAN, S/O.PONNUCHAMY, AGED 40, 6/987 VELLARA HOUSE, VITHANASSERY, VALLANGHI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS / PETITIONER / RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 : --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JANAKI, W/O.MURUGAN, AGED 55, MANNARAMKADU, VITHANASSERY, VITHANASSERY, VALLANGHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. 2. HARIDAS, S/O.MADHAVAN, PUDUWAY HOUSE, VITHANASSERY, VALLANGHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DARA HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, 234 NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SRI.R.MANIKANTAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- MACA.No. 1063 of 2010 -2- ORDER ON IA.NO. 1548/2010 IN MACA.No. 1063/2010 DISMISSED 20/09/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1063 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV)1178/04. The claimant in the petition submitted that while she was walking along the road an auto rickshaw came and hit on her resulting in injuries to her. The Tribunal awarded her a compensation of Rs.34,783/- and it exonerated the insurance company from the liability on the ground that in examination the claimant admitted that she was a passenger in the auto rickshaw. Aggrieved by the decision the owner has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as others. So far as the insurance liability is concerned a clear admission made by the appellant at the time of the examination that she was a passenger in the goods auto rickshaw would make her case weak against the insurance company. The vehicle was only covered by an act only M.A.C.A. 1063 OF 2010 -:2:- policy. When it is an Act only policy unless the person who is travelling in the vehicle is the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods there will not be coverage u/s 147 of the M.V.Act. In Asha Rani case, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani 2003 (1) KLT 165 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the position with respect to Motor Vehicle's Act of 1939 and as it stood prior to amendment under Act 54 of 1994. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the cases prior to amendment that the passengers carried in a vehicle not covered by the policy are not entitled to compensation. By virtue of the statutory interference it was made clear that if the owner or the representative of the owner of the goods is travelling in the vehicle provided it is permissible the company shall be liable. 3. At the out set it has to be stated that the claimant has no case that she was the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods. Secondly a goods auto rickshaw is not designed to carry passengers and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the auto driver is not M.A.C.A. 1063 OF 2010 -:3:- entitled to share his seat with a passenger and therefore that also will not confer any right on the claimant. Therefore by virtue of these facts it has to be held that the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability. 4. Now turning to the compensation. I find that the claimant was treated in two hospitals in Palakkad and Nenmara and she had suffered painful swelling on the wrist maxillary area and shoulder. Further with traumatic cervical cord injury. There was prolonged treatment. The Tribunal has only awarded reasonable compensation but it did not grant any compensation for permanent disability but only granted Rs.3,000/- as loss of amenities and enjoyment. The compensation given for pain and sufferings is only Rs.12,000/- and it has only granted a medical expenses that has been incurred. Therefore taking into consideration the facts it has to be held that the award is also reasonable which does not call for any interference. Therefore there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. But the claimant is directed not to take any coercive steps for M.A.C.A. 1063 OF 2010 -:4:- realisation of the balance amount for a period of two months. If the amount is not paid within two months she shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-