ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Despite service of notice nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

3. The core question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether a person who has hired a goods carriage vehicle would come within the purview of sub-Section 1 of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, although no goods as such were carried in the vehicle.

4. The claimant/respondent was a `coolie-worker. He allegedly hired an auto rickshaw which is a goods carriage vehicle bearing registration No. KL-8/M8568. The accident occurred when he was sitting by the side of the driver. According to him the driver was driving the vehicle in a most rash and negligent manner. When the vehicle reached at Kandanchira, the driver turned it to the left side without applying brake, as a result whereof, it overturned. The claimant allegedly suffered the following injuries :

1. Compound fracture lower both bones of 1/3rd left leg and multiple abrasions.

2. Lacerated would (R) & (L) Legs.

He filed a claim application in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act for a sum of Rs. 2.25 Lakhs; the details whereof are as under :

``a) Loss of earning from 13.08.99 to till now Rs. 15,000.00

b) Partial loss of earnings……from . . . . . to . . . . .at the net rate

of Rs…..….a day / week Rs. 10,000.00

c) Transport of hospital Rs. 3,000.00

d) Extra nourishment Rs. 25,000.00

e) Damage of clothing & Article Rs. 2,000.00

f) Other : Medical Expenses Rs. 40,000.00

95,000.00

g) Compensation for pain & suffering Rs. 30,000.00

h) Compensation for continuing or permanent disability, if any Rs. 50,000.00

i) Compensation for the loss of earning Rs. 50,000.00

Rs. 1,30,000.00

Total Rs. 2,25,000.00

6. Appellant in his written statement raised the contention that although the vehicle in question was insured, it is not liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle as the injured was not the owner of the alleged goods carried therein, and he was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. Violation of conditions of policy was also alleged. By reason of the award dated 23.01.2003, the Tribunal held :

10. I have already found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the goods auto rickshaw by the 1st respondent. That he was also the owner of that vehicle, at the time of accident, is evident from Ext. A3, Report of Inspection of the vehicle. Hence he is liable to pay the rickshaw was insured with the 2nd respondent the time of accident. Ext. B1 is copy of the insurance policy. Hence, they respondents

1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Issue is found accordingly.

7. A sum of Rs. 1,19,300/- was awarded in favour of the claimant with interest @ 9% pr annum. Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court negatived the contention of the appellant that the word `goods was used in Section 147 of the Act, would not be referable to the word `carried stating :

``According to us, the language of the amended provision does not show that the owner or the representative must accompany the goods or his representative who hires the vehicle travels in the hired vehicle from the place of hiring to the place where the goods are to be loaded into the vehicle and then proceeds to travel along with the goods. It is also common that after unloading the goods such passengers travel in the same vehicle to the place from where they commenced journey. The passenger does so and is allowed to do so in his capacity as the owner of the goods or his representative who has hired the vehicle for transporting goods. The amended provision makes it explicitly clear that the word `carried qualifies the owner of goods or his representative and not the goods carried. If goods are found inside the vehicle at the time of the accident, it is a clinching circumstance to establish that t