JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the owner of the luggage carrier auto rickshaw, questioning the liability fixed on him.

2. Brief facts:

On 09.06.2009, deceased Hanumanthappa was transporting the goods belonging to his brother-Ramu from Ripponpete towards Nagavalli in a Bajaj Auto bearing Registration No.KA-15/5607 on Kargal-Bhatkal - PWD tar Road. At that time, the driver of the said luggage auto drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner near Channakalluhole and the said auto rickshaw was capsized and fallen to the ditch. Hanumanthappa sustained injuries on his left fore head, right head, nose and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to the VENLOCK Hospital, Bangalore, but unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries on 11.06.2009 in the hospital. Therefore, the claimants of the deceased have filed claim petition seeking compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-owner submitted that the deceased was traveling in the luggage goods carrier auto rickshaw as an authorized representatives of the goods from Ripponpet to Nagavalli and in the meanwhile, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto rickshaw, the accident was caused and in the said accident, the deceased succumbed to the grievous injuries. When the deceased was traveling in the auto rickshaw as an authorized representative of goods, then, his risk covered under Section 147 of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in view of existence of insurance policy. But, the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the liability on the appellant-owner of the auto rickshaw. Therefore prays for modification of the liability fixed by the Tribunal.

4. It is further submitted that even though the facts are construed that the goods auto rickshaw was empty moving from Ripponpet to Nagavalli. But, the goods auto rickshaw was going for the purpose of loading household articles of his brother from Nagavalli to Ripponpet. Then, it is also amounting to deemed authorized representative of goods so as to cover risk under Section 147 of the M.V. Act. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following judgments:

(1) MFA No.21/2017 and connected matters, 25.11.2022 between the Branch Manager, Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited vs. Gowramma and others.

(2) MFA No.8715/2017 and connected matter, dated 03.01.2023, between The Branch Manager, M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shakunthala and others (Gowramma's case).

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that from the evidence of the claimant - PW1 herself and Ex.R6 - claim form, the goods Auto rickshaw was empty and in the said empty vehicle, the deceased was traveling. Therefore, it is amounting to traveling as a gratuitous passenger. Hence, the risk is not covered under Section 147 of the M.V. Act. Therefore submitted that the Tribunal is correct in holding the owner is liable to pay the compensation. Further submitted that even though in the claim petition, it is averred that there was goods in the auto rickshaw traveling from Ripponpet to Nagavalli, but the evidence of PW1 - claimant to the fact that the goods auto rickshaw was going from Ripponpet to Nagavalli for the purpose of loading luggage that amounts to auto rickshaw was coming to Nagavalli without load as it was empty. Further submitted in the FIR and also in the charge sheet, it is mentioned that the goods auto rickshaw was empty. Further in Ex.R6-claim form, the owner stated that the auto rickshaw was empty. Hence, submitted in that empty vehicle, the deceased has traveled. Therefore, it does not amount to traveling as an authorized representative of goods. Therefore, the risk is not covered as per Section

147 of the M.V. Act and it is correctly considered by the Tribunal and therefore submitted the judgment and award passed is justifiable, legal and correct one. Hence prays for dismissal of the appeal.

6. In support of his ar