IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1680 of 2007(M) ------------------------ OPMV.2105/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3: ----------------------------------------------------- M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KARUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.N.SURENDRAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, KURIEDATH HOUSE, P.O.KOLANGATTUKARA, CHOOLISSERY. 2. C.O.DEVASSY, CHEERAMBAN HOUSE, P.O.CHOOLISSERY, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. K.N.GOPI, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, KURIEDATH HOUSE, P.O.KOLANGATTUKARA, CHOOLISSERY, KOTTAKKAD (VIA) THRISSUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2001/2007 IN MACA.NO.1680/2007 DISMISSED 26/05/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1680 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)2105/05. The contention of the claimant is to the effect that while he was accompanying the goods in a goods auto rickshaw due to the negligence of the driver of the auto rickshaw the vehicle capsized and he sustained very serious injuries. The insurance company has challenged the quantum of compensation as well as the liability of the company on the ground that the claimant was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle which is not covered by he policy. The Tribunal found that the claimant was accompanying the goods loaded by him in the vehicle and therefore held that he is covered by the policy and therefore the insurance company is bound to indemnify. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant has given me a copy of the deposition of the claimant wherein he has stated that he M.A.C.A. 1680 OF 2007 -:2:- was returning back in the auto rickshaw after purchasing the goods on behalf of the owner when the vehicle capsized. There had been no cross-examination on that point by the insurance company. So there is only one sided evidence which would indicate that the claimant was travelling in the goods auto rickshaw accompanying the goods purchased by him. When it is so what is the legal position is the next question. After the amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act in 14.11.94 it is well settled as stated in the decision reported in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Suresh (2006 (4) KLT 333) which is as follows. “The amended provision makes it explicitly clear that the word 'carried' qualifies the owner of goods or his representative and not the goods carried. The owner or the authorized representative need not invariably be shown to accompany the goods, at the time of accident causing injury to or resulting in the death of the passenger who is either the owner of the goods or the authorized representative of the owner of the goods.” M.A.C.A. 1680 OF 2007 -:3:- 2. The Apex Court had made it crystal clear that after the amendment Act of 1994 a person accompanying the goods or the representative of the owner are well covered by the policy. There is evidence to show that the claimant was accompanying the goods as a representative of the owner and when an accident has occurred on account of the negligent driving and there is a valid policy for the vehicle, the insurance company is bound to indemnify. Therefore such a finding of the learned Tribunal does not call for any interference. 3. Secondly the question is regarding the compensation. I had perused the award. It is seen that the petitioner had sustained very serious injuries, i.e., fracture of acetabulam and soft tissue haematoma in the pelvis right side and he had also sustained disability. He was a labourer by profession. He had undergone hospitalization for a long period. Therefore taking into consideration the entire materials including the oral and documentary evidence available the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable M.A.C.A. 1680 OF 2007 -:4:- compensation which does not call for any interference and therefore appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed without costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-