IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 136 of 2005(D) ------------------------------- OPMV.328/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT : -------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASST. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/ADDL.CLAIMANTS 2 TO 5 & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SATHY, W/O. DEVADAS, AGED 44 YEARS, RAMAPURATHU HOUSE, MYLAPUZHA KARA, KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE. 2. BIJU, S/O. DEVADAS, AGED 30 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 3. SUBEESH KUMAR, S/O. DEVADAS, AGED 25 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 4. SYAMA, D/O. DEVADAS, AGED 22 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 5. VIJAYAN A.P., ARIECKAL HOUSE, KONNAKKAMALY P.O., DAIVAMMEDU. 6. SASI, S/O. GOPALAN, KOCHANICKAL, PAZHAYARIKANDOM KARA, KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.JOHNY - R5 SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH - R5 SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN - R1 TO R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.NO.136/2005 ORDER ON I.A.NO.213/2005 IN M.A.C.A.NO.136/2005 DISMISSED 13.08.2008 SD/-, M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No. 136 of 2005 ------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P. (MV) No. 328/2000. The claimant was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. KL.7G-1615 and as a result of the negligence of the jeep driver, met with an accident and sustained injuries. Insurance Company contented that the vehicle was insured with the same but the said vehicle was used as a taxi though it was registered as a private car. The said vehicle was loaded with timber and thereby the accident happened. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company very strongly contends before me that by using the vehicle for the transport of timber, the accident had taken place and it has been used as a taxi and therefore there is a breach of policy conditions and therefore the Insurance Company is not bound to pay the amount. Transporting some wooden materials in a jeep does not amount to using the vehicle as a taxi. Taxi is one where one person hires the vehicle to another for use on receipt of hire. There is no such M.A.C.A.No. 136 of 2005 Page numbers pleadings in this case. Just because of timber is loaded in a jeep and it is transported, it will not amount to conversion of a jeep into a taxi and it will not amount to breach of policy conditions. The learned counsel further submitted before the court that the vehicle was fully loaded with timber. Just because a private jeep with Insurance is loaded with timber for the purpose of transporting the same it will not amount to using it as a taxi. It has been held by the Apex court as well this court that Insurance company is the instrumentality of state and they are expected to satisfy the benevolent intention of the legislation conferring benefits on the accidental victims. They are not expected to raise technical pleas just like an ordinary litigant. Here the specific case that it was used as a taxi and there was breach of policy conditions does not exist at all from the materials available. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention and so the appeal is dismissed. M. N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE scm