IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1097 of 2009()
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASHISH T.JOHN, KALAMBUKATTU HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. MARTIN JOSEPH, KOTTOOR HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
For Respondent :SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :05/11/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
M.A.C.A.No.1097 OF 2009
.............................................
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the award of the
Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in OP(MV)No.2449/2004. The
claimant, a passenger in a private car, sustained injuries in
a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of
Rs.27,000/= and the insurance company has been directed to
pay the said compensation. Aggrieved by the said decision,
the insurance company has come up in appeal challenging
the validity of such an order.
2. The claimant was a passenger in a private car and
the vehicle was covered by a package policy. No additional
premium has been paid to cover the risk of the passengers. It
is contended by the learned counsel for the insurance
company that when no premium is paid for the additional
coverage of the passengers, the principles laid in United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [(2006 (2) KLT
884 (SC)] may have to be applied to the passengers in a
private car for the reason that their status will be that of a
: 2 :
M.A.C.A.No.1097 OF 2009
gratuitous passengers not covered by the policy. It is a
contention worth considering so far as the payment of
premium is concerned.
3. But the question whether there is a condition in the
contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured
whereby the insurer undertakes to cover the liability with
respect to death of or bodily injury of a person travelling in
a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward is incorporated
and the question whether by virtue of the terms of the
insurance contract the company is bound to pay the
compensation had come up for consideration before a
Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance
Co.Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778). The clause therein
”except so far as it relates to the liability under the Motor
Vehicles Act” was also considered by another Division Bench
of this Court in the decision reported in Mathew v. Shaji
Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In both these cases, the
Division Benches held that by virtue of the terms and
conditions of the contract, the insurance company has
undertaken to indemnify the liability of the owner, then the
: 3 :
M.A.C.A.No.1097 OF 2009
question of making payment of additional premium in such
cases is not necessary and that the insurance company
cannot get exonerated from the liability.
4. So, in the light of these two authoritative
pronouncements rendered by this Court, I have to hold that
by virtue of the terms and conditions of the policy, the
insurance company is bound to indemnify and therefore, the
direction given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to
the insurance company to pay the amount cannot be
interfered with.
Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merit and it is
dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl
: 4 :
M.A.C.A.No.1097 OF 2009