Joseph Francis J.
1. This appeal is filed by the third respondent, Insurance Company in O.P.(M.V.) No. 427 of 2003 on the file of M.A.C.T., Tirur. The case of the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) is briefly as follows. On 8.3.2003 while the petitioner was travelling in a mini lorry bearing registration No. KL-8U-2678 from Thazhethara to Vallathur driven by the first respondent, reached Chandanakavu in Thirunavaya - Puthanathani public road and the first respondent lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle went ahead and hit to a nearby wall and thus capsized and in that impact the petitioner sustained grievous injuries including fracture. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry by the first respondent. The second respondent was the owner of the above mini lorry. The third respondent was its insurer. Supplementary fourth respondent was the previous owner of the mini lorry. The petitioner claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation.
2. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. Third respondent filed written statement denying the policy of the vehicle and contended that the petitioner was an unauthorised passenger in the mini lorry and that the compensation claimed is excessive. Fourth respondent filed written statement contending that he had transferred the vehicle on 7.2.2002 to one Babu and that vehicle was renumbered later. Before the Claims Tribunal PW 1 was examined and Exts. A1 to 11, B1 to 3 and X1 were marked. The Claims Tribunal on considering the evidence on record found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and also found that the vehicle had a valid insurance coverage by the third respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 58,700/- to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realisation from respondents 1 to 3 and third respondent was ordered to pay the compensation as the insurer. Challenging the liability cast on the third respondent as the insurer, the third respondent filed this appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the contesting respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger and as such the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation awarded. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision reported in
4. The Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation under various heads as follows:
5. In this appeal the appellant is not challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, but challenging only its liability as the insurer. When the petitioner was examined as PW 1 he deposed that at the time of accident he was travelling in the mini lorry in order to unload the sand carried in that vehicle. In cross examination the Insurance Company has no case that the petitioner was not sitting in the cabin of the vehicle at the time of the accident. In the written statement also the third respondent has no such case. Therefore at this appellate stage the appellant cannot contend that the petitioner was not sitting in the cabin of the vehicle at the time of the accident.
6. In the decision reported in
A person who is employed either by the owner of the vehicle or the owner of the goods, and even a person who is employed in connection with the work in which the vehicle was involved, is entitled to claim compensation from the insurer in terms of Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
In view of the principles laid down in the above decision, we are of the view that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in casting the liability on the appellant as the insurer.
Accordingly this appeal is dismissed as it is without any merits. There is no order as to costs.
