IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 2120 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.807/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANAF, S/O. MOIDEEN, AGED 22 YEARS, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE,ARIKKULAM AMSOM, KANNAMBATH DESOM P.O., ARIKKULAM, QUILANDY, PIN-673 322. 2. K. KHADER, S/O. MAYAN KUTTY, AGE NOT KNOWN, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, P.O. ARIKKULAM, QUILANDY, PIN-673 322, R.C.OWNER (KL-11/M-121 MAHINDRA PICKUP). 3. BASHEER, S/O. PEKKER, AGED 39 YEARS, KACHERILLATHU HOUSE, P.O. KAVIL, NANDAVANNOUR, PIN-673 614. (DRIVER - KL-11/M-121 MAHINDRA PICKUP). ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN FOR R1 SMT.THUSHARA.V FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.2715/2007 IN M.A.C.A.NO.2120/2007 DISMISSED 8/08/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 2120 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadakara, in OP(MV) 807/03. The claimant, a coolie by profession, sustained injuries in a road accident while the vehicle in which he was travelling hit against a wall. The case of the claimant is that he had loaded copra of an individual for the purpose of sale and after unloading the copra in the place where it is sold and when he was returning back on the same vehicle, the unfortunate incident took place. 2. The Insurance Company raised a contention that he is neither the owner of the goods nor the representative of owner of the goods so as to attract the compulsory insurance contemplated under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the light of the Amendment Act 54/94. It is well settled position in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [2003 (1) KLT 165 (SC)] that Sec.95 of the old Motor Vehicles Act and Sec.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act prior to the Amendment Act are in pari materia and it does not cover the owner of the goods or representative of owner of the goods. By virtue of the amendment it is made clear that the owner of the goods and the representative of owner of the goods are covered under the Act. MACA No. 2120/07 2 3. Whether the claimant would come within the ambit of this is the short question that arises for determination. Immediately after the accident, a first information statement was given by the claimant himself. A reading of the same would reveal that he is a coolie by profession and as he was engaged by the owner of the copra he was proceeding in the vehicle for the purpose of loading and unloading the same. The factum of loading the copra was for the purpose of effecting a sale and therefore the claimant accompanying the copra can only be a representative of the owner of the goods for the purpose of loading and unloading. So the claimant satisfies that condition. 4. The next question is that the accident had taken place while he was returning back from the place of sale. At that point of time there were no goods in the vehicle. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that without goods there cannot be an owner of the goods or representative of owner of the good and therefore Section 147 will not be attracted. This question has been precisely considered by a Division Bench of this court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Suresh [2006 (4) KLT 333]. Their Lordships held that “Claim of a passenger in goods carriage will be sustainable even if the carriage is not bringing goods at the time of accident.” This court held as follows: “The policy shall cover the owner of the goods or his authorised representative who dies or suffers any bodily MACA No. 2120/07 3 injury while travelling as passenger in a goods carriage. The language of the amended 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 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 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 authorised 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 authorised representative of the owner of the goods.” 5. So in the light of this decision, it has to be held that a person who was accompanying the goods for the purpose of loading and unloading on behalf of his owner is a representative of the owner of the goods and continues to be so even after unloading the goods and returning back to the place from where he took the articles. So the finding of the Tribunal that he is covered by the compulsory Act only policy is perfectly correct. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 2120/07 4