IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 164 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.2077/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT:3RD RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TIRUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT 1 & 2: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NEDUMPALLY HAMEED, S/O.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, PARIYAPURAM P.O., TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KUNNATH MOHAMMED, S/O.SAIDALAVI, KUNNATH VEEDU, CHAMRAVATTAM, TIRUR. 3. KUNHAYA, S/O.YAHU, VALIYATHU HOUSE, CHAMRAVATTAM, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB - R2 SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR - R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.202/2006 IN M.A.C.A.NO.164/2006 DISMISSED 24/06/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 164 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur in O.P.(MV)2077/95. The grievance of the insurance company is that there is a direction to the insurance company to pay the amount and then get it reimbursed from the 2nd respondent. It is that award which is under challenge. 2. Heard counsel for insurance company as well as for the claimant. Even according to the claimant he was travelling as an occupant in the tractor which was transporting harvested crops. He had deposed before the Tribunal that he was sitting in the tractor along with the driver. So most probably the contention is that he is a representative of the owner of the goods and therefore he is covered by the insurance policy. But the position has been well settled by the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (2003 (1) KLT 165). It M.A.C.A. 164 OF 2006 -:2:- is made clear that S.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the unamended S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 are in pari-meteria and there is no coverage for the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods till the amendment came into force on 14.11.1994. Or in other words, for the category of persons mentioned above are not covered and the owner is not bound to take statutory insurance. 3. Here, in this case, the accident had taken place on 11.4.93 much prior to the amendment dated 14.11.1994. When it is so the status of the injured will be that of a gratuitous passenger and as per the terms of the policy the company is not bound to cover such a person. When the policy does not cover such a situation there is no question of any breach of policy condition so as to make the insurance company pay and get it reimbursed. Further such persons are not third parties and therefore a direction to the insurance company to pay to the 3rd party and cover it also does not arise. Therefore the order of the Tribunal directing the M.A.C.A. 164 OF 2006 -:3:- insurance company to pay and get it reimbursed is without any legal basis and it is to be set aside. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside to the limited extend that the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount to the claimant and the right for the claimant is to recover it from respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition, namely, the owner and the driver of the vehicle. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-