IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 2784 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.882/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ------------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O. VARUTHUNNY, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, CHIRMANGADU DESOM AND VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. K. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, P.O. OTHALOOR WEST, MALAPPURM DISTRICT. 3. MUHAMMEDUNNI, S/O. ABDULLA, PALAKKAL HOUSE, PATHAKKARA DESOM, KARIKKAD VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R3 SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM FOR R2 SRI.JYOTHISH.J.KALLINGAL FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.3232/2008 IN MACA.NO.2784/2008 DISMISSED 22.12.2009. SD/= M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDG. /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE. cl M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2784 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Trichur in OP(MV)No.882/2001. It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling in a lorry, the vehicle overturned resulting in injuries to him. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.59,300/= and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. Dissatisfied with the same, the insurance company has come up appeal. 2. It is the contention of the insurance company that the person who sustained injury was only a loading and unloading worker and therefore, he is not covered under the terms of the policy and therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation from the insurance company. 3. The owner of the vehicle has strongly supported the judgment of the Tribunal in the light of the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh (2006 (4) KLT 333) which went up to the Supreme Court as : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2784 OF 2008 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh(2008 4 KLT 552). The Apex Court in that decision ultimately reversed the decision of this Court on the ground that the person travelling in an auto rickshaw was not entitled to travel at all in a goods carriage and therefore application of Section 147 of the Act would not arise at all. In this case also in order to consider the question whether he is covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act it is absolutely necessary that it has to be proved to whom does the wooden logs belonged and what was the status of the loading and unloading worker. After the impleadment to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act under Act 54 of 94, as held in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [(2003 (1)KLT 165 (SC)] prior to the Motor Vehicles Act amendment in 1994 the position was that the owner of the goods and the representative of the owner of the goods were not covered by the policy. But by virtue of the amendment, it covers persons who were traveling in the vehicle as the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.2784 OF 2008 provided such persons can be carried in the vehicle. So, in order to decide the question, it has to be established that the claimant was travelling as the representative of the owner of the goods and not as the representative of the owner of the insured. 4. Therefore, the matter has to be looked into that angle for decision. I am not going into other details and applicability of the same depends upon factual position regarding the status of the claimant at the time of the accident. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to consider the question afresh and for the same purpose, permit all concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The insurance company is directed to take out notice to the claimant as well for the reason that his right is also affected in the sense that if the insurance company's contention is upheld, he will not entitled to get the amount. : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.2784 OF 2008 The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 21.1.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl