IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 952 of 2004 ------------------------------- OP(MV).NO.530/1998 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL. .................... APPELLANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, T.P.CELL, VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, KOCHI - 16. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON. RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANTS AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RATNAKARA, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, KALLIYODE, MEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, ANADU, PANAVOOR P.O. NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.SULAIMAN, MEDAYIL HOUSE, THURUTHY, THOLIKKODE P.O. NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SHIBU S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, NARIKKALIL VEEDU, KALLIYODE, VETTAMPALLY, PANAVOOR P.O. NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, ADV. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, ADV. SRI.A.S.SABU, ADV. SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR. TTHIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, ALONG WITH M.A.C.A NO.998/ 2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.952 & 998 OF 2004 ===================== Dated this the 17th day of November2008 JUDGMENT These appeals are preferred by the insurance company against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal in O.P.(MV) Nos.530 & 600/1998. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- in O.P.(MV)No.530 of 1998 and Rs.36,150/- in O.P.(MV)No.600/1998. It also directed the insurance company to deposit the amount. The insurance company contended for the position that the claimants were gratuitous passengers travelling in a pick up van and therefore they are not covered by the policy and therefore it is liable to be exonerated from the liability. 2. On the other hand, the claimants would contend that the pick up van was taken on hire for the purchase of loading goods and the claimants were travelling as the owners of the goods and therefore by virtue of the provisions of Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended by Act 54 of 1994 they are liable to be covered. It is an admitted fact that the claimants were travelling in the platform of the vehicle. It is also admitted that there were no goods in the vehicle at the time of accident. So far as the MACAs 952 & 998/2004 -:2:- second point is concerned, learned counsel for the claimants would contend before me that a Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Suresh(2007(1) ACJ 262) held that there need not be goods so as to attract the provisions under Section 147(1) of the Act. The very same matter had been taken up before the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Suresh K.K. and another(2008 ACJ 1741)and the Apex Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment held that the High Court, therefore, may be correct that the owner of the goods would be covered in terms of the said provision. The Division Bench of this Court was considering the question in a case where a person as a representative of the owner of the goods after unloading the goods was travelling back to the place from where he took the vehicle and in that process sustained injuries. The Division Bench held in that case that there need not be always goods in the vehicle to qualify him as the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods. This Court held that the word 'carried' used in Section 147 of the Act relates to the person, viz., the owner or the representative of the owner and not the goods and therefore the interpretation must be given in that context. The Apex Court held that such a finding rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on that point may be correct. It is true that in the very same case the Supreme Court held that it was an autorickshaw goods vehicle which had MACAs 952 & 998/2004 -:3:- only one seat and as the person was accompanied in the driver's seat it amounts to violation of policy conditions and therefore there is a breach of policy condition and the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability. Therefore just because there was no goods in this case also one cannot find fault with the Tribunal for holding it is so. 3. Now the next point is whether by virtue of travelling in the platform of a vehicle, the claimant is entitled to claim compensation and what will be his status. In order to cover a person under Section 147(1) of the Act he must be an owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods.The Apex Court in the decision reported in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma and others((2008) 1 SCC 423) held that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle(paragraph 19). So to be an authorised passenger as an owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods, the above dictum shows that he must be travelling in the cabin of the vehicle. Since he wass not travelling in the cabin of the vehicle, he cannot be termed as an authorised passenger as contemplated under Section 147. When it is so, a person who travels in the platform of the vehicle will be an unauthorised passenger who can be termed only as a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy of insurance issued under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore I MACAs 952 & 998/2004 -:4:- find that the policy does not cover the insurance coverage. So the insurance company is entitled to be totally exonerated from the liability and I do so. Therefore MACAs are allowed and the insurance company is exonerated from the liability and the claimants are at liberty to proceed against respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition jointly and severally for the amount given under the award. The amount deposited by the insurance company as a condition precedent to entertain the appeal shall be disbursed to the company. In case it is disbursed in favour of the claimants, the insurance company will be entitled to realise it from the owner of the vehicle. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-