UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the law require that to avail the benefit of Clause (b)(i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the owner of the goods or his authorised representative who dies or sustains bodily injury caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place while travelling as passenger in a goods carriage, should be shown to accompany the goods, at the time of the accident In other words, does the statute require that not only the owner of the goods or his authorised representative but the goods also should be carried simultaneously in the vehicle which gets involved in a motor accident causing death or bodily injury to that passenger

(2.) The above issue has come up for consideration in this appeal filed by the 2nd respondent-Insurer in O.P. (MV) No. 2484/99 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. It is admitted case that the 1 st respondent-claimant was travelling in a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-8/M 8568 driven by the 2nd respondent, along Choondal-Guruvayur public road from south to north on 13-8-1999. The 1st respondent had hired that vehicle for the purpose of bringing coconuts from Thalakkottukara to Orumanayur. He was sitting on the left side of the driver in the above goods carriage. When the vehicle reached Kandanchira, at about 11.15 a.m., it capsized due to the rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent sustained serious injuries including fracture of both bones in the accident.

(3.) It is not disputed that the vehicle was insured with the appellant. According to the 1st respondent, he was travelling in the vehicle as the authorised representative of the owner of the coconuts to be loaded and transported from Thalakkottukara. The Tribunal placing reliance on the oral evidence of the 1st respondent who was examined as P.W. 1 and the documents marked as Exts. Al to A9 on his side found that the 1st respondent sustained injuries due to the negligent driving by the 2nd respondent. After quantifying the compensation due to the 1st respondent at Rs. 1,19,300/- the Tribunal allowed the 1st respondent to realise the above said amount from the 2nd respondent and the appellant with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition.