IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1063 of 2004() ------------------------------- OP(MV).909/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE O.P: ------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT/RESPONDENTS 1&2 IN THE O.P: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PLAKKAPAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. PULLUT, UZHUVATHUKADAVU. 2. ABDUL KHADAR, S/O.MOIDEEN, PADINJARE VEETTIL, P.O.PULLUT, KODUNGALLUR. 3. VENUGOPAL, S/O.KUMAR, PANNARIYIL HOUSE, PULLUT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.D.PANICKER FOR R1&ADDL.R4,5&6 SMT.JEENA JOSEPH FOR R1&ADDL.4,5 & 6 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. No. 1063/04 ORDER ON I.A.No. 2375/04 IN M.A.C.A.No. 1063/04 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. 17.07.2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1063 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)909/97. The claimant sustained injuries in an auto rickshaw accident. It was his case that he had hired an auto rickshaw for the purpose of loading bricks which he had purchased for the purpose of constructing a latrine but before they could reach the destination it is submitted that the auto rickshaw overturned resulting in sustainment of injuries to the claimant. The Tribunal found the negligence on the auto rickshaw driver. It also fixed the compensation for injuries sustained and further held that the claim will come within the purview of the owner of the goods accompanying the goods and therefore is entitled to statutory coverage under Section 147 of the M.V. Act. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred. M.A.C.A. 1063 OF 2004 -:2:- 2. Learned counsel for the insurance company very strongly contends before me that the approach of the Tribunal is totally erroneous for the following reasons. 3. First, he would submit that as there was no goods in the vehicle one cannot call the claimant as an owner accompanying the goods and therefore Section 147 of the M.V. Act cannot be attracted. Secondly, the Tribunal should not have relied upon the interested oral contention of PW1 to arrive at a decision regarding the case of the claimant. So far as the first point is concerned a Division Bench of this Court had considered this aspect in the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007 ACJ 262). The Court held that, “The language of the provision does not show that the owner or the representative must accompany the goods in order to come within the purview of that clause. It is rather common that the owner of the goods or his representative who hires the vehicle travels in the hired vehicle from the place of hiring to the place where the goods are to be loaded into the vehicle and then proceeds to travel along with M.A.C.A. 1063 OF 2004 -:3:- the goods. It is also common that after unloading the goods such passengers travel in the same vehicle to the place from where they commenced journey. The passenger does so and is allowed to do so in his capacity as the owner of the goods or his representative who has hired the vehicle for transporting goods.” 4. Section 147 of the M.V. Act envisages a statutory coverage also for the owner of the goods or authorized representative of the goods carried in the vehicle. The provisions relating to motor accidents are to be construed in the realistic sense and a technical approach may defeat the very purpose for which that beneficial legislation is enacted. It is a common knowledge that when a person purchases some items from a distant place he may make arrangements for a vehicle from his native place to reach there and carry the goods. Necessarily he has to go in the vehicle to lead to that point and the very purpose of travelling in the vehicle is for the solitary purpose of transporting goods purchased by him. Suppose the accident takes place before it reaches the destination one cannot compartmentalize the journey into M.A.C.A. 1063 OF 2004 -:4:- two and arrive at a decision that he was not accompanying the goods. Therefore I fully agree with the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and hold that it is admissible and it is covered under Section 147. So far as the next point is regarding the acceptability of the contention of the claimant, PW1 has stated before the Tribunal that he had already purchased some bricks and he had hired the vehicle for transporting the bricks. The Tribunal felt that his evidence is intrinsically reliable and inherently probable and therefore accepted his version. There was no counter evidence or anything else to suggest otherwise in this case. Therefore the Tribunal cannot be found fault with on that account also. From these discussions I hold that the Tribunal had arrived at a correct decision and it does not call for any interference. Therefore the MACA is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-