IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 604 of 2004(B) ---------------------------- OPMV.595/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- K.SREEDHARAN, S/O. RAMAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, KURUPPATH HOUSE, P.O.PATHAIKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. K. KANDANKUTTY, S/O KUNHADI, AGED 31 YEARS, THACHANGOTTIL HOUSE, P.O. THOOTHA, (DRIVER). 2. T. MOHAMMEDALI, S/O MOHAMMED, THACHANGODAN HOUSE, P.O. THOOTHA(OWNER). 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 604 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred by the claimant against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P. (MV)595/96. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.46,050/-. The Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from the liability. It is against the quantum as well as the liability the appeal is filed by the claimant. 2. First, let me consider about the quantum. The claimant had sustained a fracture on the humerus. There were two disability certificates as Exts.X1 and X2. One fixing the disability at 3% and other fixing it at 8%. The Tribunal accepted the disability certificate of 8% and calculated the compensation taking the income at Rs.2,000/-. It used an appropriate multiplier and awarded a disability compensation of Rs.28,800/-. It has to be remembered that the accident was of the year 1995 and the Tribunal has awarded M.A.C.A. 604 OF 2004 -:2:- Rs.5,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings and Rs.4,000/- as loss of earnings. Even under the Schedule to the M.V. Act in an injury case where the injury sustained amounts to a grievous injury, the compensation for pain and sufferings is Rs.5,000/-. So it cannot be held that the amount awarded is low or inadequate. Therefore I find that a reasonable compensation is awarded. 3. The next question is regarding the liability of the insurance company. Unfortunately, the claimant who was waiting for a bus happened to travel in a pick up van which met with the accident. So the status of the claimant is not that of the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods. But he is a gratuitous passenger. If there is a breach of policy condition one can direct the insurance company to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the owner. Suppose the policy does not cover that person at all then there is no question of directing the insurance company to pay the amount. Therefore what is contemplated is total exoneration of the liability and not the right to recover. This M.A.C.A. 604 OF 2004 -:3:- is what has been precisely done by the Tribunal. Learned counsel would contend, in some other cases another direction is given to the insurance company to pay the amount and to recover it from the owner. But as far as the present position of the law is concerned when the policy does not cover, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability. Therefore I do not find any mistake in the award passed by the Tribunal and hence the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- M.A.C.A. 604 OF 2004 -:4:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No. 604 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 29th August, 2008.