Denesan, J.

Does the law require that to avail the benefit of clause (b) (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the owner of the goods or his authorised representative who dies or sustains bodily injury caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place while traveling as passenger in a goods carriage, should be shown to shown to accompany the goods, at the time of the accident? In other words, does the statute require that not only the owner of the goods or his authorised representative but the goods also should be carried simultaneously in the vehicle which gets involved in a motor accident causing death or bodily injury to that passenger?

2. The above issue has come up for consideration in this appeal filed by the 2nd respondent-Insurer in O.P. (MV)No.2484/99 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. It is admitted case that the 1st respondent-claimant was traveling in a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-8/M 8568 driven by the 2nd respondent, along Choondal Guruvayur public road from south to north on 13-8-1999. The 1st respondent had hired that vehicle for the purpose of bringing coconuts from Thalakkottukara to Orumanayur. He was sitting on the left side of the driver in the above goods carriage. When the vehicle reached Kandanchira, at about 11.15 a.m., it capsized due to the rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent sustained serious injuries including fracture of both bones in the accident.

3. It is not disputed that the vehicle was insured with the appellant. According to the 1st respondent, he was traveling in the vehicle as the authorised representative of the owner of the coconuts to be loaded and transported from Thalakkottukara. The Tribunal placing reliance on the oral evidence of the 1st respondent who was examined as P.W.1 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A9 on his side found that the 1st respondent sustained injuries due to the negligent driving by the 2nd respondent. After quantifying the compensation due to the 1st respondent at Rs.1,.19,300/- the Tribunal allowed the 1st respondent to realize the above said amount from the 2nd respondent and the appellant with 9% interest per annum form the date of the petition.

4. Though the appellant has taken up the contention that the quantum determined by the Tribunal as compensation is excessive, the contention seriously pursued before us is that the Tribunal went wrong in as much as the appellant/insurer has been made liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent. According to the appellant the insured allowed the 1st respondent to travel in the goods carriage as gratuitous passenger and thereby incurred liability. It was contended that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act the owner of a goods carriage has no obligation to insure persons carried in the goods carriage and hence no liability can be fixed on the insurer of that vehicle.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant cited before us the decision of the Apex court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (2003 (1) KLT 165 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy (2003 (1) KLT 583 (SC) in support of his contention.

6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that since the accident occurred while the goods carriage was proceeding to the place from where the goods had to be loaded for transportation in the vehicle hired for that purpose and as the 1st respondent was traveling in the vehicle as the authorised representative of the owner of the said goods, the insurer cannot shirk its responsibility to indemnity the owner. Ext.B1 policy issued by the appellant had insured the 2nd respondent against liability incurred by him in respect of the bodily injury to the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the goods carriage as enjoined by clause (b)(i) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act. Learned counsel raised a