SEBASTIAN P J PLATHOTTATHIL Vs. V S HARIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant in O.P(MV) No. 631/1999 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam has come up in appeal against the award in that O.P(MV). Although in the appeal memorandum, the appellant claimed enhanced compensation also, counsel for the appellant confined his argument on the question of absolving the Insurance Company alone.

(2.) The appellant was travelling in a goods autorickshaw. According to him, he was accompanying the goods that was being carried in the autorickshaw. The accident happened when he was returning in the vehicle after unloading the goods at its destination. The contention of the appellant is that since the appellant was the authorised agent of the owner accompanying the goods, he is entitled to be covered under the insurance policy taken by the owner of the vehicle.

(3.) The appellant contends that he was not given sufficient opportunity to prove the above fact before the Tribunal. Counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was only a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and on that premise absolved the Insurance Company from liability. He therefore prays that the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal to enable the appellant to adduce sufficient evidence to prove his case that he was actually an authorised agent of the owner of the goods which were carried in the goods autorickshaw.