IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2354 of 2008()
1. SUNIL, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MRS.C.D.LALITHA, W/O.LATE DAMODARAN NAIR
... Respondent
2. JAYADEEP.A, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :29/01/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 2354 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)2928/00.
The claimant, a pillion rider in a two wheeler sustained
injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a total
compensation of Rs.8,000/-. The insurance company is
directed to pay the amount. In paragraph 17 of the award it
is stated that Ext.B1 would show that it is neither an
extended policy nor any additional premium is collected to
cover the risk of a pillion rider. Admittedly the policy is a
comprehensive policy. It is true that if it is an Act only policy
the dictum laid down in Tilak Singh’s case [United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh)2006 (2) KLT 884
(SC) would come to play and the status of the pillion rider
would be that of a gratuitous passenger not covered by the
policy. But just because it is a comprehensive policy that by
itself does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. But it depends
M.A.C.A. 2354 OF 2008
-:2:-
upon the terms and conditions of the contract and some of
the policies which are issued prior to 2002 it is seen that
there is a condition that the insurance company under S.2
(II)(i) has undertaken to cover the risk of a pillion rider
carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. The
said clause came up for consideration before the Division
Bench of this Court in the decision reported in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008 (3)
KHC 522(DB). In that case the Division Bench held that if
there is terms of contract which cover the risk of a person
then no additional premium need be collected for the
coverage of risk. But it is matter that can be considered only
after production of the terms and conditions of the policy.
Therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of
the Tribunal. Therefore the award under challenge is set
aside so far as it relates to the liability is concerned and the
parties are permitted to produce both documentary as well
as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions
and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter in
M.A.C.A. 2354 OF 2008
-:3:-
accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before
the Tribunal on 2.3.2009.
The MACA is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-