JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award on the ground that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as the claimant has traveled as a gratuitous passenger.

2. Brief facts:

On 26.10.2007, at about 12.30 a.m., the claimant was traveling in a luggage auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-17/A-5971 as a owner of goods. When the said auto rickshaw reached near Electric Transformer at B. Durga Village, due to rash and negligent driving, the driver of the said auto rickshaw lost control and the auto rickshaw was toppled down. Due to the said impact, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the claimant has filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant and perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the claimant has traveled in the luggage auto rickshaw as a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, under Section 147 of the M.V. Act, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner and to pay compensation.

5. The respondent remained absent in spite of service of notice.

6. The Tribunal has fastened liability on the appellant/Insurance Company on the ground that it is proved that the claimant has traveled in the goods vehicle being an authorized representative of the areca nuts goods. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation under Section 147 of the M.V. Act.

7. Upon considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, evidence is to be looked into, to ascertain the facts whether the claimant has traveled along with goods as owner of the goods or as a gratuitous passenger.

8. The accident was caused on 26.10.2007 (in the judgment, at paragraph 2, the month of the accident is wrongly mentioned as 7) and the complaint is lodged on 27.10.2007. Therefore, there is no much delay in lodging the complaint before the police. At the very initial point of time, while lodging complaint before the police on 27.10.2007, the claimant has stated that he has the auto rickshaw on rent goods auto rickshaw for the purpose of carrying areca nuts goods going from Davanagere to Shivapura village and while going so, along with goods in the auto rickshaw, the auto rickshaw met with the accident.

9. The involvement of the auto rickshaw in the accident is not disputed. It is stated that the claimant was going in the auto rickshaw along with goods as a owner of the goods. Even in the complaint, it is stated that the claimant and another person were going in the goods auto rickshaw and any one can be either owner or the authorized representative of the goods or both. Even it may be strictly construed, only one person is permissible to go in the goods vehicle along with goods, but there is no other claim in respect of the said accident. Therefore, when it is proved that the claimant traveled in the goods auto rickshaw along with the goods being owner of the areca nuts goods, the risk under Section 147 of the M.V. Act is covered. Just because, the seating capacity is one only, but, that is according to the manufacturing of the auto rickshaw and quite naturally the same is reflected in the registration certificate book, but where the statute is prescribed covering risk of the owner or authorized representative of the goods travel in a goods vehicle, therefore, as per the statute, as brought amendment on 14.11.1994, the compulsory risk of the owner of the goods or the authorized representative of the goods is covered while the a person is travelled in the goods vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner and to pay compensation to the claimant. Therefore, there is no need to interfere in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, I pass the following