IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1983 of 2006()
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BABU.M.K., S/O.KUNJAN,
... Respondent
2. SHYMA.P.K., W/O.SHAJI MON,
3. MUHAMMED IQBAL, S/O.A.K.PAREED,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :14/11/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J
-----------------------
M.A.C.A.No. 1983 OF 2006
---------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV) No.335/02.
The claimant has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 88,800/- and
the Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount. It is
against that decision the Insurance Company has come up in
appeal. It is contended by the Insurance Company that the
claimant was only a pillion rider in a vehicle. The policy issued was
only an Act only policy. So it is contented that in the light of the
decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh
[2006 (4) SCC 404] , the Insurance Company is not bound to
pay. The provisions and principles were considered by the apex
court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [2003 (1)
KLT 165 (SC)] as well as in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Tilak Singh [2006 (4) SCC 404] case. In Tilak Singh’s case the
apex court had held that when the policy issued is only an Act only
policy, it does not statutorily cover the risk of the passenger under
Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Then referring to the dictum
M.A.C.A.No. 1983/2006
-2-
in Asha Rani’s case held that the status of a pillion rider will be
that of a gratuitous passenger as is found in Asha Rani’s case and
so they will not be covered by the terms and conditions of an Act
only policy unless additional premium is paid for the pillion rider.
Here I have perused the policy which is only an Act only policy.
There is no additional premium collected. So applying the dictum
laid down in Tilak Singh’s case it has to be held that the
Insurance Company is not bound by the contract of Insurance to
indemnify the insured. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal
directing the Insurance company to pay the amount is set aside and
the claimant is given liberty to realise the amount from respondents
1 and 2 jointly and severely. If any amount is deposited by the
Insurance Company, that shall be returned back to them and if any
amount has been disbursed to the claimant the Insurance Company
will have the recovery right from the owner with respect to that
amount from the owner of the vehicle.
The M.A.C.A is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE
vkm