J U D G M E N T

The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV)

No.163/2005 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala. They are the wife and children of the deceased Joseph, who had met with a motor vehicle accident. The case of the appellants is that on 26.03.2000 at about 8 p.m. while deceased Joseph was travelling by auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-7/C-7008 through Ramapuram - Kizhathiri Road, it capsized, thereby Joseph sustained injuries.

2. The insurance company, who is the 2nd respondent, has contended that the auto rickshaw was covered by an 'act only policy' and the same was issued as a private car policy. Therefore, a passenger in such an auto rickshaw could only be considered as a gratuitous passenger, who is not covered under the policy.

3. The said contention taken by the 2nd respondent was accepted by the learned Tribunal and it was held that deceased Joseph was only a gratuitous passenger in an auto rickshaw, which could not be used for hire or reward. Ext.B1 is the insurance policy which clearly reveals that coverage would be there only when the same was used for social, domestic and pleasure purposes for the insured and also for the insured's own business. It has been