IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 601 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.1621/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------- 1. SOSAMMA MATHEW, W/O. MATHEW, MURINGATHARA, MUPPAIKADU P.O.,PANACHIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. NIBU M. MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, MURINGATHARA, MUPPAIKADU P.O.,PANACHIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. NEENU M.MATHEW, D/O. MATHEW, MURINGATHARA, MUPPAIKADU P.O.,PANACHIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (2ND AND 3RD APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS REP. BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND MOTHER AND GUARDIAN THE FIRST PETITIONER). BY ADV. SMT.GIRIJA.L. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. SABU C.PETER, PARACKATHOTTIYIL, MOOLAVATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CITY BRANCH, PAREKULAM BUILDING, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.601 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation as well as for declaration of liability on the Insurance Company for the death of the first appellant's husband in a road accident. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellants and Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. 2. The accident occurred while the deceased was traveling in a goods autorickshaw owned and driven by the first respondent. Since the policy is an Act policy, passenger traveling in good autorickshaw is not covered by the policy. Therefore, the MACT rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from liability. It is doubtful whether the award amount itself can be recovered from the driver-cum-owner of the autorickshaw whose friend the deceased was. Therefore, we do not find any ground to enhance the compensation which will be virtually a futile exercise. Besides this, we are constrained to observe that the 2 victim by traveling in the platform of a goods autorickshaw contributed to his death in the accident. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms