2025:KER:22911 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 1145 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.01.2015 IN OPMV NO.472 OF 2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR. APPELLANT: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.lTD, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE ERNAKULAM, METRO PALACE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI - 18. BY ADV SRI.A.R.GEORGE RESPONDENTS: 1 PRADEEPKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, KOZHIKULATHU HOUSE, MURUKKUMPADAM JUNCTION, PUTHUVYPU VILLAGE, PIN - 682 508. 2 SHINE RAJ, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SASI, MATTAPPILLY HOUSE, THONIPPALAM, PUTHUVYPU VILLAGE, PIN - 682 508. 3 SUDHEESH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN, KANDATHILCHIRA VEEDU, WEST TO WELL, SOUTH MALIPPURAM, PUTHUVYPU VILLAGE, PIN - 682 508. M.A.C.A.No.1145 of 2015 2025:KER:22911 -2- 4 AUGUSTUS DAVID, AGED 46 YEARS, M.MALIAKKAL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P.O., KOCHI - 682 508. BY ADVS. SMT.K.P.AMBIKA T.K.KOSHY SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.A.A.SHIBI SMT.M.K.SAMYUKTHA NAVEEN THOMAS(K/419/2002) PRADEEP KUMAR A A THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.1145 of 2015 2025:KER:22911 -3- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 11th day of March, 2025 This is an appeal filed by the 3rd respondent in OP(MV) No.472 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal) 2. The Original Petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.07.2010. According to the petitioner, on 03.07.2010, at about 11.45 p.m., while he was travelling in a Maruthi van bearing Registration No.KL-7/AS-1234 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, he lost the control of the vehicle and it hit against a compound wall. As a result of which he sustained injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer and 4th respondent is the insured of the Maruthi van. 4. The tribunal assessed a compensation of Rs.1,28,000/- and directed the 3rd respondent insurer to pay the same. Being aggrieved by the above award, the 3rd respondent preferred this appeal. 5. The point that arise for consideration is: M.A.C.A.No.1145 of 2015 2025:KER:22911 -4- 1) Whether Ext.B1 policy covers the petitioner who was travelling in the Omnivan. 6. Heard Sri.A.R.George, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri.Pradeep Kumar A A, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 7. The Point: The learned Standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would argue that, Ext.B1 policy is only a Liability only Policy and it does not cover a gratuitous passed like the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that, it was not a Liability only Policy, but a Package Policy and as such, it covers the employee of the owner and that the petitioner being an employee of the owner of the vehicle, the tribunal was justified in awarding compensation against the insurer. 8. On a perusal of Ext.B1 policy, it can be seen that, a sum of Rs.100/- was paid towards personal accident for owner/driver-GR 36 A and another Rs.25/- was paid towards legal liability to employees-INT 29. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that, INT 29 covers an employee in addition to the driver. It is true that, an Ext.P1 policy a sum of Rs.25/- was paid towards an employee in addition to the driver. Therefore, if it is proved that, the petitioner was an employee of the owner, Ext.B1 covers him M.A.C.A.No.1145 of 2015 2025:KER:22911 -5- also. However, in this case, there is no reliable evidence to prove that the petitioner was an employee of the owner of the vehicle. In the claim petition, his case is that, he was doing business in dry fish. In the claim petition, he has no case that, he was travelling in the offending car at the time of the accident as an employee of the owner of the car. In the chief affidavit filed by him before the tribunal also his claim is that, he was doing business in dry fish and he was travelling in the said vehicle at the time of the accident in connection with his business. Nowhere in the claim petition or in the proof affidavit, he has a case that he was an employee of the driver of the car. During the re-examination, an attempt was made to show that, he was doing business along with the owner of the car Shine Raj. Even if if is assumed that, he was doing business along with the owner shine Raj, it does not mean that, he is an employee of the owner. 10. In the above circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the petitioner has failed to prove that, he was an employee of the owner of the offending car and as such, Ext.B1 policy does not cover him. Therefore, the tribunal was not justified in finding that Ext.B1 policy covers the petitioner and directing the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation on behalf of the owner. In other words, this appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned award to the extend in directed the insurer to pay the compensation is liable to be set M.A.C.A.No.1145 of 2015 2025:KER:22911 -6- aside. At the same time, respondents 1 and 2 are being the owner and driver of the vehicle alone are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned award to the extend in directed the insurer to pay the compensation is liable to be set aside. Respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and driver of the vehicle alone are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the insurer would submitted that, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was deposited, at the time of filing the appeal as part of the award amount. Since the appeal is allowed and the appellant is exonerated, the amount so deposited shall be disbursed to the appellant as per Rules. Sd/- C.PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE ADS