High Court Kerala High Court

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Somasundaran on 6 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
The United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Somasundaran on 6 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1780 of 2008()


1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SOMASUNDARAN,S/O AYYAPPAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. PRATHEESHKUMAR, T.S., S/O SUBRAMANIAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.GEORGE

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.I.SAGEER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :06/11/2008

 O R D E R
                           M.N. KRISHNAN, J
                           -----------------------
                      M.A.C.A.No. 1780 OF 2008
                      ---------------------------------
                Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008


                                JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV) No.2119/03. The claimant, a

pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and he has awarded

compensation of Rs. 70,620/-. The contention of the Insurance

Company is that no additional premium is paid and therefore it is not

liable to pay compensation. The policy issued is not an Act only policy

but a package policy. There are conditions attached to the package

policy especially under Section II(1)(i) which states that the Insurance

Company is bound to indemnify the risk of a person who is carried in a

motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. This clause came up for

consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the decision

reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and

others [2008 (3) KHC 522]. In the said decision the Division Bench

held that by virtue of terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance

Company is bound to indemnify. Therefore in the light of the said

decision the Insurance Company cannot get exonerated from the

liability.

Therefore the M.A.C.A lacks merit and dismissed.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vkm