IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 2051 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.262/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KALPETTA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.PATTALI SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- 1. SASIDHARAN, S/O. RAMAN NAIR, KUZHITHADATHIL, NAMBIARMADATHIL P.O., BAVALI, MANANTHAVADY TALUK. 2. V.P.REJI, S/O. EALIYAMMA, VETTAKATTIL, PALVELICHAM P.O., PAYYAMAPALLY, CHULIGADHA, MANANTHAVADY TALUK. BY ADV SRI.N.J.ANTONY FOR R1 BY ADV SRI.ABEESH JOSE FOR R2 SRI.PETER ISAAC FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. 2270/2006 IN M.A.C.A. NO: 2051 OF 2006 DISMISSED: 23/7/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE jj /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO: 2051 OF 2006 -------------------------- Dated this the 23rd July, 2008. JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta in O.P.(M.V) No: 262/98. The claimant who was travelling in a tractor sustained injuries and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.21,200/- and the liability was suffixed on the insurance company to pay the same. The appeal is preferred by the insurance company against the award of the Claims Tribunal casting liability on it. 2. Learned counsel for the insurance company would argue that being a passenger in a tractor he is not covered by the policy and therefore the insurance company has no liability to indemnify the owner. On the other hand he would contend that the claimant was returning after unloading and he was travelling in the tractor as the representative of owner of the goods. The accident had taken place in 1998. Along with the appeal the insurance company has also produced the policy copy and copy of deposition of the claimant. In the chief examination he would depose that he was M.A.C.A.2051/06 2 coming back after unloading the cow dung. But in the cross examination he would state that the tractor driver was known to him and so he travelled in the tractor. So the question that arises for consideration would be what was his status. Whether he was a passenger or whether he was accompanying as the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of goods. Then the next question would be whether a person who is travelling in a tractor can be classified as travelling under Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the owner or representative of the owner of goods. It may also have to be considered whether the tractor is a goods vehicle or not. So, these are all matters which requires detailed consideration by the Tribunal. 3. The document produced along with the appeal is received and the insurance company is given liberty to take back those documents and produce it before the Tribunal. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, regarding the inter se dispute between the owner and the insurance company and also regarding the status of the claimant and liability of the owner and insurance company. M.A.C.A.2051/06 3 Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.8.2008. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE jj