IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1462 of 2006()
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SHAJU, S/O.DEVASSY,
... Respondent
2. THOMAS, S/O.OUSEPH, ACHANAMPADAM,
3. K.P.APREM, KATTAKKATHODU HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
For Respondent :SMT.CAROLIN SINDHU VAZ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :20/08/2008
O R D E R
M. N. KRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No. 1462 of 2006
------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P(M.V) No. 98 of 2000. The
claimant was a pillion rider in a motor bike bearing Registration No.
KL-8/C1437. It was ridden by the first respondent and on account of
his negligence in driving, two pedestrians who filed O.P .No. 97/2000
and O.P .No. 99 of 2000, were injured. The Tribunal found that the
accident had taken place on account of negligence of the first
respondent and awarded compensation in all the cases and in O.P . No.
98/2000, it awarded an amount of Rs. 17, 036/-. In all the three cases,
the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount. The
contention of the Insurance Company in the appeal is to the effect that
the appellant herein was a pillion rider in a bike, and it is only an Act
Only Policy, which is proved by production of Exhibit B1. The main
grievance is that though it has raised specific contention regarding its
non-liability, the Tribunal did not consider it and therefore, requested
the court to interfere with the question of the liability. If such a
M.A.C.A.No. 1462/ 2006
Page numbers
contention is raised certainly it has to be considered. Further, I feel
because of the fact that this case was tried along with two other cases of
the two other third parties, the Tribunal did not seriously take into
consideration this aspect. If only an Act Only Policy is taken and no
additional premium is paid, then a pillion rider may not be covered by
such a policy. Therefore, it is a matter that requires consideration.
Therefore,I set aside the award passed in O.P No. 99/2000, so far
as it relates to the liability of the Insurance Company. The Insurance
Company as well as the owner of the vehicle are permitted to produce
both oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective
contentions and the Tribunal shall decide whether the pillion rider in
the bike is liable to be compensated by the insurer by virtue of the
terms and conditions of the policy. However, the quantum awarded is
not interfered with. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal
on 6/10/2008.
M. N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
scm