JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is submitted by the 3rd respondent/insurer in O.P. (MV) No. 452 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta. The said claim petition was submitted by respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal seeking compensation for the death of one Vijayan due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 29.05.2007. The respondents 5 and 6 are the driver and owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. 2. According to the claimants, the deceased hired a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-12A/7278 for transporting hay to the house of the deceased. One trip of the hay was transported, and when they proceeded with the second trip, due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, the autorickshaw hit a stone near the road and capsized. The deceased was thrown off to the road and sustained severe injuries. Even though he was taken to Medical College Hospital, Calicut and was admitted there, due to the seriousness of his injuries, he died on 05.06.2007. The deceased was 45 years old at the time of the accident and was an agriculturist with a monthly income of Rs.3,750/-. 3. The claim petition was submitted by the claimants, who are the wife, father and the children of the deceased. The driver and owner of the vehicle, the 1st and 2nd respondent in the claim petition, filed a joint written statement contending that the accident occurred when the 1st respondent applied sudden break to save a man who unexpectedly ran across the road. It was also contended that the vehicle was validly insured with the 3rd respondent in the claim petition, the appellant herein, and the 1st respondent in the claim petition had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, if at all there is any liability the amount should be paid by the 3rd respondent in the claim petition, the appellant herein. The appellant/3rd respondent filed a written statement contending that the goods autorickshaw was carrying two passengers against the permit and in violation of the policy conditions, and hence, they were not liable to pay the compensation. In such circumstances, they sought exoneration from the liability. 4. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, and as documentary evidence, Ext.A1 to A7 were marked from the side of the claimants. In such circumstances, they sought exoneration from the liability. 4. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, and as documentary evidence, Ext.A1 to A7 were marked from the side of the claimants. From the side of the respondents in the claim petition, the driving licence of the 1st respondent was marked as Ext.B1. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw. As regards the contention raised by the insurance company that there was a violation of policy condition as the driver permitted two other persons to travel in the cabin of the vehicle, it was found that in the absence of any documents showing the seating capacity of the vehicle and the terms and conditions governing the coverage of the policy, the same cannot be accepted. Thus, the appellant /3rd respondent insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.2,99,250/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the appellant/3rd respondent insurance company with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is submitted by the appellant/3rd respondent challenging the said award to the extent it imposes liability upon the appellant. 5. Heard Sri. Sebastian Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Lalji P. Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, the claimants before the Tribunal. 6. The main contention raised by the appellant is that under no circumstances the appellant can be held liable to pay the compensation. It was pointed out that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, and the policy does not contain coverage of the risks of such a passenger. It was also contended that even if it is held that the deceased would come under the coverage of the policy, the insurance company shall be given the right to recover the compensation as there was a violation of policy conditions, in view of the fact that the driver carried two passengers in the cabin of the said vehicle. 7. It was also contended that even if it is held that the deceased would come under the coverage of the policy, the insurance company shall be given the right to recover the compensation as there was a violation of policy conditions, in view of the fact that the driver carried two passengers in the cabin of the said vehicle. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would point out that the appellant cannot be treated as a gratuitous passenger, as it has come out in evidence that at the relevant time, the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle being the owner of the goods. It was contended that, in the claim petition itself, it was specifically averred that he hired the said autorickshaw and was going to a destination to collect hay to be transported to his house. He also relied on Ext.A1 FIR, wherein the first informant stated the purpose of travel in the said vehicle, which was to collect hay. 8. I have carefully gone through the records. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon various decisions New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani, 2003 (1) KLT 165 SC, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ajit Kumar, 2003 (3) KLT 688 SC, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thrissur vs. P.K. Sukumaran and Others, 2017 (4) KLT 363 and Mary and Others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014 (1) KLJ 805 and a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in M.A.C.A. No. 1315/2006. 9. As regards the contentions raised by the insurance company to the effect that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, I am of the view that the same cannot be accepted. In the claim petition itself, a specific case advanced by the claimants was that the deceased hired the vehicle to go to the residence of one Vikraman to collect hay. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants, in Ext.A1 First Information Report, which was recorded on the next day of the accident, the said fact was clearly mentioned. Of course, it is indeed an admitted position that no goods were carried in the said vehicle at the time of the accident. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants, in Ext.A1 First Information Report, which was recorded on the next day of the accident, the said fact was clearly mentioned. Of course, it is indeed an admitted position that no goods were carried in the said vehicle at the time of the accident. Therefore, the question that would arise is whether, in the absence of any goods at the time of the accident, a person travelling in the said vehicle can be termed as the owner accompanying the goods as contemplated under Section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Suresh K.K. and Another, 2006 (4) KLT 333 . In paragraph 12, it was observed as follows: “12. According to the appellant the goods must be available in the vehicle because it provides the nexus between the passenger and the goods and makes the passenger eligible to claim compensation from the insurer. But according to the 1st respondent goods need not invariably find a place in the goods carriage at the time when the accident occurs and that it would suffice if the passenger establishes that he was travelling as the owner of goods to be loaded into the vehicle and transported to the destination where unloading would take place. There cannot be any doubt that the owner of the goods or his authorised representative must be passengers of the goods carriage when the vehicle meets with an accident resulting in death or bodily injury to that passenger. Hence the word “carried” indubitably qualifies the passenger who may either be the owner of the goods or his representative. The word “carried” is in juxtaposition with the words “or his authorised representative.” According to the learned counsel for the appellant if the above words are ignored, the word ‘carried’ will qualify the word ‘goods’. According to us, the language of the amended provision does not show that the owner or the representative must accompany the goods in order to come within the purview of that clause. According to us, the language of the amended provision does not show that the owner or the representative must accompany the goods in order to come within the purview of that clause. It is rather common that the owner of the goods or his representative who hires the vehicle travels in the hired vehicle from the place of hiring to the place where the goods are to be loaded into the vehicle and then proceeds to travel along with the goods. It is also common that after unloading the goods such passengers travel in the same vehicle to the place from where they commenced journey. The passenger does so and is allowed to do so in his capacity as the owner of the goods or his representative who has hired the vehicle for transporting prods. The amended provision makes it explicitly clear that the word ‘carried’ qualifies the owner of goods or his representative and not the goods carried. If goods are found inside the vehicle at the time of the accident, it is a clinching circumstance to establish that the passenger who claims to be the owner of goods or the owner’s representative was travelling in that capacity. Chances of passengers or the insured raising false claims in this regard cannot be safe method to ascertain the intention of the Legislature. False claims can be disproved by the insurer by adducing materials and evidence and also by raising appropriate contentions. In our view, such issues are matters of evidence and will not stand scrutiny while construing a beneficial provision intended to compensate the loss caused to innocent victims of motor accidents. The party who claims that the person who died or suffered injury was the owner of goods or the representative of the owner of the goods shall discharge the burden cast on him. Merely for the reason that the benefit granted will be misused, it will not be proper to give a narrow interpretation to the above provision. The party who claims that the person who died or suffered injury was the owner of goods or the representative of the owner of the goods shall discharge the burden cast on him. Merely for the reason that the benefit granted will be misused, it will not be proper to give a narrow interpretation to the above provision. We therefore hold that the owner or the authorised representative need not invariably be shown to accompany the goods, at the time the goods carriage meets with accident causing injury to or resulting in the death of the passenger who is either the owner of the goods or the authorised representative of the owner of the goods.” Of course, the said decision was indeed overruled by the Honourable Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Suresh and Another, 2008 (4) KLT 552 . However, a careful reading of the said decision would indicate that the observations made by this Court in the paragraph extracted above were not explicitly overruled by the Honourable Supreme Court. To be precise, in the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Suresh K.K. Case 2008 (4) KLT 552 , the finding of this Court to the effect that even in the absence of goods carried in the said vehicle at the time of the accident, a person can be treated as the owner of goods, was not specifically interfered with but the Honourable Supreme Court modified the judgment rendered by this Court on the reason that the driver therein permitted another person to share his seat without any seating capacity for accommodating him and therefore there was violation of policy conditions. Therefore, the insurance company was directed to pay the award at the first instance, and they were permitted to recover the compensation from the insured. This question again arose before another Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Alekutty Antony and Others, 2009 (4) KLT 130 . In the said decision, this Court followed the decision rendered by this Court in United India Insurance Co. This question again arose before another Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Alekutty Antony and Others, 2009 (4) KLT 130 . In the said decision, this Court followed the decision rendered by this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Suresh K.K. and Another, 2006 (4) KLT 333 and found that the persons travelling in the goods vehicle as loading and unloading workers, as well as the mason engaged in the actual work of carrying goods transported in that vehicle and were returning in that vehicle after unloading the goods to the place from where the owner of the goods hired, were treated as persons coming within the coverage of policy. The contention of the insurance company, to the effect that they were gratuitous passengers, was rejected. However, in that decision also, the insurance company was exonerated from the liability on the ground that the passenger therein was found to be travelling not in the cabin but along with the load outside the cabin i.e. on the platform of the vehicle. Thus, it is evident that in that case, the mere fact that the vehicle carried no load at the relevant time was not treated as a legal impediment to accept the status of the passenger of the vehicle as the owner of the goods of the vehicle. 10. The learned counsel for the insurance company placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Mary’s case (supra). However, in that case, also, the factual position as existed in this case, namely the vehicle was hired to collect the goods, and they were travelling in the vehicle to reach the destination from which the goods were to be collected, was not there. On the other hand, the question was whether the person travelling outside the cabin could be treated as a person accompanying the goods. 11. Similarly, in the decision rendered by another Division Bench of this Court in M.A.C.A. No. 1315/2006 also the factual position that existed in this case was not there. Of course, it is true that, in P.K. Sukumaran’s case (supra), a single Bench of this Court held that in the absence of the goods in the vehicle at the time of the accident, the person travelling in the said goods vehicle cannot be treated as the owner of the goods. Of course, it is true that, in P.K. Sukumaran’s case (supra), a single Bench of this Court held that in the absence of the goods in the vehicle at the time of the accident, the person travelling in the said goods vehicle cannot be treated as the owner of the goods. However, in the light of the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Suresh K.K. and Alekutty Antony (supra), the decision in P.K. Sukumaran’s case cannot be relied upon as while rendering the said decision, the said Division Bench decisions were not brought to the attention of the learned Single Judge. 12. Thus, in the light of the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the mere absence of the goods carried in the vehicle would not preclude this Court from treating the person carried in the vehicle as the owner of the goods provided, there is other evidence indicating that he was travelling in the vehicle in such capacity. Therefore, the question that arises here is whether there are ample materials indicating that he was travelling in the said vehicle as the owner of the said goods. 13. In this case, the specific case pleaded by the claimant is that the deceased had hired the said vehicle to collect hay from the house of one Vikraman, and they were moving to that destination at the relevant time. The said fact is asserted by PW1, the wife of the victim while she was examined. More importantly, the said fact is also mentioned in the FIS given by the first informant before the police in the crime, which was registered on the next day of the accident. The said document is produced as Ext.A1. On the other hand, there is no other contra evidence to dispute the said contention. 14. In such circumstances, in the absence of any contra evidence, the said contention has to be accepted, and it is held in the light of the decision referred to above that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle at the relevant time as the owner of the goods. Therefore, the risk of the deceased was covered as per the terms and conditions of the policy by virtue of the statutory stipulations contained in Section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 15. Therefore, the risk of the deceased was covered as per the terms and conditions of the policy by virtue of the statutory stipulations contained in Section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 15. The next question that arises here is whether there is any violation of the policy conditions. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company places reliance upon Ext.A1 FIR to point out that at the relevant time, in addition to the driver, two passengers were carried inside the cabin of the said vehicle. As per the terms and conditions of the policy and the permit issued to the vehicle, the driver was not supposed to carry any passengers inside the cabin. It was also contended that there was no seating capacity to carry anyone other than the driver. Since it has come out that two persons travelled in the said vehicle, it amounts to a violation of policy conditions, which would enable the Insurance Company to get the amount recovered from the registered owner after satisfaction of the award, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. 16. Of course, it is true that Ext.A1 would indicate that at the relevant time, the first informant and the deceased were travelling inside the cabin along with the driver. It is also evident that, at least, this would indicate that parties were travelling inside the cabin. However, whether the carrying of such a person was beyond the seating capacity or policy conditions restricted the carrying of any person other than the driver inside the cabin are matters to be looked into for considering the said question. In this case, apart from the Ext.A1 FI Statement, there are absolutely no documents indicating the restrictions for carrying any person other than the driver of the Autorickshaw. When the Insurance Company raises a contention that there was a violation of policy condition consequent to a particular act committed by the insured or the driver authorised by the insured, the most crucial aspect to be taken into consideration for deciding the said issue is the terms and conditions of the policy as such. In this case, Ext.A5 is the policy produced, and the said document would not indicate the terms and conditions of the policy but instead, it contains the number of the policy and details of the premium collected from the insurer. In this case, Ext.A5 is the policy produced, and the said document would not indicate the terms and conditions of the policy but instead, it contains the number of the policy and details of the premium collected from the insurer. The seating capacity or restrictions in carrying any additional passenger in the cabin are not mentioned in Ext.A5. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle for carrying excess passengers, the final report was also not produced. The Tribunal rejected the contentions raised by the Insurance Company in this regard mainly due to the fact that the appellant Insurance Company failed to produce the documents showing the seating capacity of the vehicle, terms and conditions of the policy, the extent of contractual liability of the Insurance Company etc., as the said documents were the most crucial materials to be considered, for deciding the said question. The absence of such documents can only lead to a view against the contentions raised by the Insurance Company. As rightly found by the Tribunal, in the absence of any such documents, the violation of policy conditions cannot be attributed to the insured, and therefore, the right of recovery as claimed by the appellant cannot be entertained. 17. Of course, it is true that, in the decisions which were referred above, including the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Suresh’s case (supra), the right of recovery was granted on the reason that excess passengers were allowed inside the cabin at the time of the accident. However, the said question cannot be decided in favour of the appellant in this case because of the lack of evidence to show any restriction or prohibition in carrying such passengers inside the cabin since there was no document to substantiate such restrictions. In such circumstances, the only possible conclusion is that the finding of the Tribunal was probable and cannot be interfered with. In such circumstances, after considering all the materials placed on record, I do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the award passed by the Tribunal.