IMPORTANT POINT
Gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles are not covered by standard insurance policies unless additional premiums are paid, rendering previous rulings on liability inapplicable.

JUDGMENT :

JOHNSON JOHN, J.

The 2nd respondent insurance company in O.P. (MV) No. 1267 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Attingal filed this appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal directing the 2nd respondent insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claim petitioner and thereafter, to recover the same from the 1st respondent owner of the vehicle.

2. According to the claim petitioner/injured, he is a coolie worker and at the time of the accident, he was accompanying the goods in the pick up autorickshaw and because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 1st respondent, it overturned and thereby the claim petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked from the side of the claim petitioner and Exhibit B1, copy of the policy of insurance, was marked from the side of the 2nd respondent.

4. After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the 2nd respondent insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioner with liberty to recover the amount from the 1st respondent owner of the vehicle.

5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company and the respective counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company argued that the claim petitioner was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle and he is not covered by the act only policy and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant insurance company. It is argued that the Tribunal, even after arriving at a finding that the claim petitioner was travelling in the goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, directed the appellant insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claim petitioner with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and the said direction is against the principles of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Others [2003 KHC 22] and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and others [2006 KHC 605]

7. The learned counsel for the respondent/ claim petitioner argued that the claim petitioner was the representative of the owner of the goods transported in the vehicle and that after the 1994 amendment, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the owner of the goods or his representative travelling in a goods vehicle. But, the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company invited my attention to the averments in the claim petition and pointed out that the claim petitioner has no case that he was the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods transported in the vehicle. In column No. 10 of the claim petition, it is only stated that the applicant was accompanying the goods in the pick up autorickshaw and there is no averment that he is the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods transported.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent/claim petitioner argued that from Exhibit A1 First Information Statement, it can be seen that the injured was travelling in the vehicle for the purpose of unloading the goods. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company invited my attention to paragraph 14 of the written statement, wherein it is specifically contended that the applicant was an unauthorised passenger and that he was not accompanying any goods and he was not the representative of the owner of the goods. Therefore, it can be seen that even in the absence of any specific averment in the claim petition that the claim petitioner was the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods, the respondent insurance company has specifically contended in the written statement that the claim petitioner was an unauthorized passenger and he was not the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods.

9. As noticed earlier, the Tribunal recorded a findin