This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P. (MV) No.1298 of 2003. It is the case of the claimant that while after unloading the rice belonging to Mahima Modern Rice Mill, of which he is an employee and while the lorry was returning back it met with an accident resulting in injuries to him.

2. On the other hand, the insurance company would contend that he was not the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods and therefore contended that the status of the claimant would be that of a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy and so the insurance company is not bound to indemnify.

3. The learned Tribunal, on exhaustive consideration of the materials held that the claimant was returning after unloading the goods and therefore the has to be considered as a representative of the owner of the goods and extended the benefit under S.147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and directed the insurance company to pay the amount.

4. Let me first consider about the factual matrix. It is the definite case of the claimant that he was an employee of Mahima Modern Rice Mill. It is the case that rice was transported in the lorry from Kaladi to Cherthala and after unloading the rice while the vehicle was returning to Kaladi the accident occurred and therefore he still continues to be the authorized representative of the owner of the goods and therefore entitled to claim benefit of the insurance policy. The insurance company would contend that he has nothing to do with the goods and therefore he cannot be termed as the representative of the owner of the goods and further as there was no goods in the lorry at the time of the accident, he cannot be considered as a person representing the owner of the goods. Under S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended by Act 54 of 1994, a person accompanying the goods or the authorized representative of the owner of the goods are covered under the statutory policy. So, it has to be found whether he is an authorized representative of the goods. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh (2006 (4) KLT 333) considered this position and held that the amended provision makes it explicitly clear that the word 'carried' qualifies the owner of goods or his representative and not the goods carried. The owner or the authorized representative need not invariably be shown to accompany the goods, at the time of accident causing injury to or resulting in the death of the passenger who is either the owner of the goods or the authorized representative of the owner of the goods. It was also a case where the accident took place where the persons were returning after unloading the goods. It was to be stated that the matter was taken up before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had reversed the decision of this Court in the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh (2008 (4) KLT 552 (SC). It has to be noted that the Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Court not on the finding on this point but altogether a different point for the reason that it was an auto rickshaw and it was not expected to carry person in a driver's seat. The Supreme Court held that the vehicle in which the goods were carried was not designed to carry another person and therefore carrying another person permitting him to share the seat of the driver is not correct and therefore that person will not have the status of the owner of the goods or the representative or the owner of the goods and thereby declined relief to those persons. The Supreme Court never considered this point but observed that "the High Court, therefore, may be correct that the owner of the goods would be covered in terms of the said provision". In another decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Alekutty Antony (2009 (4) KLT 130) a reference has been made to b