JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2021 ...

This appeal is filed by the 3rd Respondent insurance company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, in OP (MV) No. 254/2014. The claim petition was filed by the Respondents 1 to 4 herein, seeking compensation for the death of one Sudheesh due to the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident occurred on 7/02/2014. The accident occurred when the goods autorikshaw in which the deceased was travelling was capsized due to rash and negligent driving of the 5th Respondent/1st Respondent. According to the petitioners in the claim petition, the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as an authorised representative of the owner of the goods, and at the relevant time they were proceeding to a place called Bavali for collecting hay. As compensation, they have sought for an amount of Rs 12 lakhs.

2. The 1st and 2nd Respondents in the claim petition, who are 5th and 6th Respondents herein, filed a joint written statement admitting the fact that the deceased was travelling in the autorikshaw for the purpose of bringing hay. The quantum of compensation was disputed by them. It was further contended by them that, in case it is found that they are liable to pay compensation, the said amount has to be recovered from the Appellant/3rd Respondent, as the vehicle was duly insured with them at the time of the accident.

3. The Appellant insurance company filed a written statement admitting the existence of policy, but denied having coverage in respect of the claim. The main contention put forward by the insurance company is that, the vehicle was covered with a liability only policy and the deceased was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and hence no coverage was available. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them.

4. The evidence in this case consists of Exhibits A1 to A8 from the side of the Respondents 1 to 4/petitioners. From the side of the Appellant, Exhibits B1 and B2, which are the insurance policy as well as registration particulars of the vehicle involved were produced. No oral evidence was adduced from either side.

5. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st Respondent. The quantum of compensation was fixed as ₹ 16,07,000/-. With regard to the question of lack of coverage, after considering the materials, the Tribunal arrived at the finding that, the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as the representative of the owner of the goods and hence the claim in respect of his death would come within the purview of the coverage of policy. Even though it was contended by the Appellant that, the vehicle was not having the facility to accommodate a passenger therein, as Ext. P2 registration particulars shows that the seating capacity of the vehicle is just 1, the Tribunal rejected the said contention, by relying upon Ext B1 policy, wherein they have collected premium by showing the seating capacity of the vehicle as 1 + 1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the finding of the Tribunal regarding the coverage of policy.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the deceased can be treated as a gratuitous passenger, as contented by the Appellant, or as the owner of the goods or an autherized representative of the owner of the goods .

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant would urge that at the time of the accident, the vehicle did not contain any goods and therefore the deceased cannot be treated as the owner of the goods or a representative of the owner of goods carried in the vehicle. On the other hand, The learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 relies upon the judgment rendered by this Court in United India insurance company Vs Velayudhan (2010 (4) KLT 834), to oppose the said contention. In the said ju