IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1478 of 2006() --------------------------------- OPMV.945/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT. ---------------------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., GURUVAYOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MOTOR THIRD PARY CELL, AJAI VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH, S/O.MANI, PUTHOOR HOUSE, MUNDOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. GOPIDASAN, S/O.VELUKUTTY, VADERIYATTIL HOUSE, P.O.MUNDOOR, THRISSUR-680 541. ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 1479 OF 2006 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA Nos.1478,1479,1480,1481 OF 2006 & W.P(C)No.24234/2006 ===================== Dated this the 21st day of November 2008 JUDGMENT M.A.C.A.No.1478 of 2006 is preferred against the award in O.P. (MV)No.945 of 2001, MACA No.1479/2006 against O.P.(MV) No.946/2001, MACA No.1480/2006 against O.P.(MV)No.952 of 2001, MACA No.1481/2006 against O.P.(MV)No.1570/2001 and W.P.(C) No.24234 of 2006 against O.P.(MV)No.953/2001 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. In all these cases compensation was awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurance company was directed to pay the amount. It is challenging that decision, these appeals and writ petition have been preferred. 2. Even according to the claimants, they were travelling in a goods autorickshaw along with their goods, viz., the materials required for the performance of kaikottikkali and when it reached the place of accident, the vehicle capsized and injuries were sustained by the claimants. The contention of the insurance company is that the claimants were only gratuitous passengers in an autorickshaw and as the policy issued is one for MACA 1478/2006 & con. cases -:2:- Act only policy and so the said persons are not covered by the policy. So, the fundamental thing to be looked into these cases is regarding the status of the persons. An autorickshaw goods vehicle is one which is not designed to carry any passengers. If there is only one seat, it is reserved for the driver and if any person other than the driver travels sharing that seat is against law and in the decision reported in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Suresh K.K. and another(2008 ACJ 1741) the Apex Court held that “in any view of the matter in a three-wheeler goods carriage, the driver could not have allowed anybody else to share his seat. No other person whether as a passenger or as a owner of the vehicle is supposed to share the seat of the driver”. So there is violation of the condition of the contract. The Apex Court has also held that an owner of the goods is a person who is only expected to travel in the cabin of the vehicle which is provided for such travel. One is not expected to travel in the platform of a goods autorickshaw. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended by Act 54 of 1954 only covers the risk of the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods. It means that there is space or seat for the owner or the representative of the owner of the goods to travel in the vehicle. So far as goods autorickshaw is concerned, there is no such provision to carry an owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods. So when MACA 1478/2006 & con. cases -:3:- persons are carried in such vehicles their status can be that of only an unauthorised person not entitled to travel in the vehicle. So when persons are carried in a vehicle which is not expected to carry anyone, one cannot get the rescue under Section 147 of the amended provision and seek protection under that. Therefore I have absolutely no hesitation to hold that these persons were not entitled to travel in the autorickshaw at all and if they have done so, they have done at their peril and the statutory incorporation of Section 147 does not cover the risk of such unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle. Therefore the policy which is only an Act only policy does not cover the risk of these persons, which means that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation at all and therefore it is to be exonerated from the liability. Therefore the common award in all these cases is modified and the insurance company is totally exonerated from the liability and the claimants are at liberty to proceed against the first respondent for realisation of the award amount. Appeals and the writ petition are disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/- MACA 1478/2006 & con. cases -:4:-