E. Padmanabhan, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 30, 000/= in addition to Rs. 5, 000/= awarded by the Tribunal below.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and none appears for the respondents.
3. It is the case of the claimant that while he was proceeding by a van bearing Registration No. KRP 4698 belonging to the first respondent accompanying the consignment of goods, the vehicle driven rashly and negligently, hit against a tree and as a result of the said accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries and he was hospitalised. The claimant in all claimed a sum of Rs. 30, 000/= towards loss of goods and Rs. 30, 000/= towards injury sustained by him as well as pain and suffering.
4. Before the Tribunal below the claimant examined two witnesses and marked Exs. P-1 to P-4. The claim petition was resisted by the insurer of the vehicle denying the accident and also contending that the claimant being a passenger in a goods vehicle cannot maintain a claim petition and at any rate the claim is excessive.
5. The Tribunal framed the following two points for consideration :-
'i) Whether the accident has been caused by the mechanical defect in the vehicle ?
ii) What is the amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to ?'
6. On the first point, the Tribunal held that the accident has been caused as alleged by the claimant. There is evidence, which has been rightly accepted. The Tribunal also held that the claimant is entitled to payment of compensation. As regards the quantum of compensation, on a consideration of the details of injuries sustained, medical expenses incurred, the Tribunal directed payment of compensation of Rs. 5, 000/= alone while rejecting the claim of Rs. 30, 000/= towards loss of consignment of fish transported by the appellant.
7. The only point that arise for consideration in this appeal is :-
'Whether the claimant is entitled to maintain a claim petition against the owner of a van and insurer of a goods vehicle in which he travelled ?'
8. Concedingly, the vehicle in which the claimant was a passenger is a goods vehicle and, therefore, he is not entitled to maintain a claim petition. The point raised in this writ petition is covered by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in MALLAWWA v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. reported in .
9. In NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. ASHA RANI reported in 2003 (2) SCC 223, the Supreme Court after following Mallawwa's case, held thus :-
'22. ...... On the other hand proviso (ii) appended to Section 95 of the 1939 Act, enjoined a statutory liability upon the owner of the vehicle to take out an insurance policy to cover the liability in respect of a person who was travelling in a vehicle pursuant to a contract of employment. The legislature has consciously not inserted the said provision in the 1988 Act.
23. The applicability of the decision of this Court in Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., in this case must be considered keeping that aspect in view. Section 2(35) of the 1988 Act does not include passengers in goods carriage whereas Section 2 (25) of the 1939 Act did as even passengers could be carried in a goods vehicle. The difference in the definitions of 'goods vehicle' in the 1939 Act and 'goods carriage' in the 1988 Act is significant. By reason of the change in the definitions of the terminology, the legislature intended that a goods vehicle could not carry any passenger, as the words ' in addition to passengers' occurring in the definition of goods vehicle in the 1939 Act were omitted. Furthermore, it categorically states that 'goods carriage' would mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use 'solely for the carriage of goods'. Carrying of passengers in a 'goods carriage', thus, is not contemplated under the 1988 Act.
24. We have further noticed that Section 147 of the 1988 Act prescribing the requirements of an insurance policy does not contain a provision similar to clause (ii) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the 1939 Act. The decision of this Court in Mallawwa case must be held to have been rendered having regard to the aforementioned provisions.
25. Section 147 of the 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of 'public service vehicle'. Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It does not speak of any passenger in a 'goods carriage'.
26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words 'any person' must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. 'a third party'. Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefore.'
10. In the light of the above pronouncement of the Supreme Court, we hold that the claim petition is not maintainable. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but without costs.