Unauthorized passengers in goods vehicles are excluded from insurance coverage under statutory provisions, establishing limits on insurer liability.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

This appeal has been filed by the third respondent insurer in OP(MV) No. 366 of 2016 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, challenging the liability and quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. Respondents 1 to 3 herein were the claimants and respondents 4 & 5 herein were respondents 1 & 2 before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 23.10.2015, the deceased, who was a timber loading worker, while accompanying goods in a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-5G/5888 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the front tyres of the jeep lost contact with the road when climbing upwards and the jeep was lifted upwards and then, the deceased jumped out of the jeep. When the jeep moved forward, the deceased happened to be jammed between the jeep and a retaining wall, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹25,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle filed a written statement, denying negligence. The second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹12,96,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the insurer. The third respondent insurer has come up in appeal, challenging the liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/respondent insurer and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3/claimants.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in a goods vehicle and hence, was not covered by a policy of insurance, however, though the said contention was raised before the tribunal, the tribunal fastened the liability on the insurer finding that the deceased was a third party at the time of the accident, which is per se illegal. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the allegation that he was accompanying the goods is not correct and he was neither an owner nor a representative of the owner of the goods, whereas, he was travelling by sitting on the bumper of the jeep by violating traffic rules. It is further submitted that the contention that the deceased was a loading worker and was travelling in the vehicle in connection with the work is not proved and he cannot be treated as a third party and the insurer cannot be held liable to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal. To buttress the arguments, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment in Sanjeev Kumar Samrat v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others [2012 KHC 4730], wherein the apex court held that statutory policy only covers the employees of the insured, either employed or engaged by him in a goods carriage and it does not cover any other kind of employee and therefore, someone who travels not being an authorized agent in the place of the owner of goods, and claims to be an employee of the owner of the goods, cannot be covered by the statutory policy.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant, on the ot