IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2356 of 2007()
1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOBY TOM,S/O. TOM,
... Respondent
2. SUNISH P.S. @ S/O. SUKUMARAN
3. VINODKUMAR, PERIYATHU HOUSE
For Petitioner :SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :03/10/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 2356 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 3rdday of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala, in OP(MV) 1352/04. The
Insurance Company has come up in appeal challenging the finding of
the Tribunal that the conditions of policy covers the liability of a pillion
rider. In para.10 of the award the terms and conditions of the policy
are extracted by the learned Tribunal, which reads as follows:
“Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule
hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an
accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle
against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to
pay in respect of
-death of or bodily injury to any person including
occupants carried in the insured vehicle (provided such
occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so
far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor
Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such
death or injury arises out of and in the course of the
employment of such person by the insured.”
-Damage to property other than property belonging to the
insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the
insured.”
2. A Division Bench of this court in the decision reported in
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose and Others [2008 (3)
MACA No. 2356/07
2
KHC 522 (DB)] interpreted the very same clause and made it clear
that “the above clearly states that the insurer has undertaken liability
in respect of death or bodily injuries to any person including a person
conveyed in or on the motor cycle provided such person is not
carried for hire or reward.” From the above decision it is very clear
that the terms and conditions of the policy covers such a person even
without payment of wider premium. Therefore, there is nothing to
interfere with the decision of the Tribunal.
The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
MACA No. 2356/07
3