The court emphasized that insurance coverage provisions must conform to statutory requirements, ensuring that claimants receive just compensation without being denied due to vehicle permit issues.

1. The appeal arises from the award passed by the MACT, Thrissur in OP (MV) No. 1545 of 2001 granting compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the appellant in a road traffic accident. The grievance is that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is abysmally on the lower side and hence is sought to be enhanced, based on the grounds raised in the appeal.

2. The accident occurred on 01/04/2001, when an autorickshaw bearing No. KL.8 - M / 3049 (Goods Autorickshaw) in which the appellant was travelling, allegedly accompanying the goods, overturned causing serious injuries to him. In fact, one more person was travelling in the said vehicle and he also sustained injuries. The appellant filed OP (MV) No. 1545 of 2001, whereas the other injured filed OP (MV) 1991 of 2001. The autorickshaw, in fact, was owned by the second respondent, driven by the first respondent and insured by the third respondent. Attributing negligence solely on the driver of the autorickshaw, the injuries were sought to be compensated by the respondents.

3. In the written statement filed by the first respondent, it was contended that no negligence was there on the part of the first respondent in driving the vehicle and that he was holding a valid driving licence, adding that the vehicle was insured by the third respondent, who, would be liable to satisfy the compensation, if any.

4. The second respondent filed a written statement contending that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time and that he had already transferred ownership and possession of the vehicle to one Mr. Durai, for a consideration of Rs.48000/-, on 05/01/2001. It was also stated that he had no connection, whatsoever, with the first respondent and that the said respondent was never employed by him. The age, occupation, income etc. were also disputed by the second respondent.

5. The third respondent Insurance Company sought to dispute the liability pointing out that the passengers in the Goods Carriage were not covered under the policy issued in respect of the Goods Autorickshaw. It was also contended that the vehicle did not have any valid permit on the date of the accident and as such, it could not have been plied on the road under any circumstance. The absence of valid driving licence for the driver was also raised as a ground to dispute the liability, besides disputing the age, occupation, income and such other relevant aspects.

6. Both the Original Petitions were taken up together and evidence was adduced jointly. The appellant was examined as PW 1 and documents produced were Exts. A1 to A19 and Ext. B1 copy of the Policy. After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident was solely because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and proceeded to work out the compensation and fix the liability accordingly. A total compensation of Rs.60200/- was awarded by the Tribunal, which was directed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The Tribunal also arrived at a finding that, though the second respondent had contended that he was not the owner of the vehicle during the relevant time and that he had transferred the vehicle to some other person, it was not substantiated. Further, he remained to be RC owner and Ext. B1 policy was also standing in the name of the second respondent. It was further observed that even as per Ext. A5 charge - sheet, the RC owner of the vehicle was none other than the second respondent.

7. The contention of the insurer that the