IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 245 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.591/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------- PARAMMAL SURENDRAN,S/O.P.A.RAMAKRISHNAN PARAMMAL HOUSE, PUTHANKUNNU P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.LALJI P.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. P. AKBAR SHAJI, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK SUHARA MANZIL, KOYERI THAZHAM ELANJIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. KUNNIYIL ABDULLAKUTTY, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN KINASSERI, MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 3. M/S.NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. NEW DELHI BRNCH. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 4. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. LOCAL BRANCH, MGT BUILDING, KALPETTA. 5. LEELAPAT, S/O.CHAILI SINGH E-37, RAJOURI GARDEN NEW DELHI /IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER. ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN FOR R3 & 4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 245 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wayanad in O.P.(MV) No.591/1997. The claimant, a 36 year old man, sustained injuries while he was witnessing the lifting of a lorry by a crane. Unfortunately the rope of the crane capsized and it fell on the claimant resulting in injuries to him. The claimant has been knocking at wrong doors and he moved the case before a Civil court and it was dismissed on account of the nonpayment of court fee. 2. The tribunal held that it will not be a bar to file a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act and the principles of resjudicata may not apply. In order to entertain a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by virtue of the amendment, the period of limitation is taken away. If it is under Section 166, one has to establish that the accident has been resulted on account of the arising out of the use of a motor vehicle and further it happened on account of the negligence of the person in charge of the vehicle. So far as the question of araising out of the use of a motor vehicle is M.A.C.A. 245/2008 -2- concerned, the claimant was witnessing the lifting of a lorry by usage of a crane which unfortunately got detached and fell on him resulting in injuries to him. There was proper warning and direction not to go near that place at the stage of lifting. Even otherwise there was no business for him to go and stand there when a vehicle is lifted. So the unfortunate man has invited the injury for himself by his inadvertent act and one cannot attribute negligence on the person who was operating the crane. Therefore the question of negligence does not stand established in this case. 3. The next question is whether he is entitled to any compensation at all. I feel this is a case where at least it can be considered by the court whether compensation for non-fault liability can be awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For deriving the same claimant may have to establish that he comes within the parameters of Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimant can be permitted to prove the same. 4. Lastly there is a strong dispute regarding the coverage of the vehicle. 1st respondent owner would contend that it was the 5th respondent who was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and there was a valid coverage for the vehicle. The M.A.C.A. 245/2008 -3- learned counsel had made available before me for perusal a copy of the same. But this is a matter which has to be probed into. It is further stated, even if the 5th respondent is the owner of the vehicle at time of the accident and as there has been a transfer of the vehicle in his favour, Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Acts would come to the rescue of the owner for the reason that after the amendment, the policy is issued for the vehicle, not for the individual and therefore it changes hands with the owner. Of course, there is a statutory obligation to report it and get it changed. But this is also a matter that has to be considered. Therefore the tribunal may have to decide who was the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident and whether there was a valid coverage and on answering the same, the liability can be cast. 5. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside for the purpose of considering the question whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and with a further direction to decide the ownership and coverage of the vehicle involved in the accident so as to fix liability if the claimant is entitled to get compensation. For the said purpose the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back M.A.C.A. 245/2008 -4- to the tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 26.2.2009. The claimant is also directed to take out notice to the 5th respondent in the claim petition, as his involvement is also necessary in the adjudicatory process. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm