IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1857 of 2006() ---------------------------------- OPMV.553/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP (MV): ------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN, AGED 28, S/O.GEORGE, RESIDING AT KALLUMKAL HOUSE, VAZHAKULAM KARA, MANJALLOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP (MV): ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.C. DAVIS, CHIRAYATHMANJALIYIL HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O., MANNUTHY, THIRSSUR. 2. GEORGE, S/O.VARGHESE, KALLUMKAL HOUSE, VAZHAKULAM KARA, MANJALLOR VILLAGE. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MAHESWARI BUILDINGS, M.G. ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 SMT.SIKHA G.NAIR FOR R1 & 2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.1857 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 12th day of November 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)No.553 of 2003. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him compensation, but exonerated the insurance company from the liability. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. The question that arises for determination is regarding the liability of the insurance company. If the claimant is able to establish that he was the owner of the goods, accompanying the goods, by virtue of the amended provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act then he is statutorily covered. This position has been made clear in the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Asha Rani(2003(1) KLT 165(SC). The Tribunal had considered the question threadbare. In the petition it is averred that he was travelling in the lorry as the owner of the goods, but at the stage of evidence, it is contended that after selling the pineapples he was returning from Palakkad and it was in that process the MACA 1857/2006 -:2:- accident took place. It is true that in one or two decisions of this Court , it has been held that there need not be compulsorily any goods at the time of accident provided it has been established that the goods had been taken by the person accompanying the goods and that he was returning back to his normal destination. So far as this case is concerned, it is the case of the claimant that he had purchased pineapples from the market at Vazhakkulam and had sold at Palakkad and whenhe was returning back from Palakkad that the accident had taken place. If a lorry that too a public transport vehicle is hired there must be the trip sheet in the vehicle evidencing taking of the lorry for hire for transportation. There must be bills or some documents to prove the purchase of pine apples and there should be documents for the sale of pine apples. Even if it is not in printed form at least there would be entries in the records of the person who had purchased pine apples regarding payment of value of the pineapples. So this is not a matter for which there will not be any acceptable legal evidence. I find that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence only in the correct perspective and arrived at a decision that he was not travelling in the vehicle as the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods which would entitle a coverage under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore exoneration of the liability done by the Tribunal is in order and MACA 1857/2006 -:3:- the appeal is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-