The New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Abdul Salam on 5 February, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1973 of 2008()


1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ABDUL SALAM, 146 A, SREERANGAM,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ABDUL SALAM, THYYIL HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VPK.PANICKER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :05/02/2010

 O R D E R
                       M.N. KRISHNAN, J
                      -------------------------
                  M.A.C.A No.1973 OF 2009
                   --------------------------------
        Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010.

                        J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the award of the

claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(M.V).No.691/05. The claimant

has been awarded a compensation of Rs.36,500/- and the

Insurance company is directed to pay the amount on the ground

that the policy is a package policy. Dissatisfied with the liability

fixed on the Insurance Company, it has come up in appeal.

2. Heard the counsel for the Insurance Company.

3. The attempted point is to the effect that since no

additional premium is paid for the coverage of a pillion rider, the

insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay

compensation. The learned counsel would argue that the

principle of payment of premium is a must for coverage as per

the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Tilak Singh’s case.

Now admittedly, the policy issued is a package policy. By virtue

M.A.C.A. No.1973/08 2

of a clarificatory circular issued by the Insurance Regulatory and

Developmental Authority dated 16.11.2009, it has been clarified

that a person travelling in a private car, passengers carried in a

two wheeler are covered by the terms and conditions of the

Standard Motor Package Policy. Further the policy conditions

came up for consideration before two Division Benches of this

court in the decisions reported in 2008 (3) KLT 778 and 2009 (3)

KLT 813, New India Insurance Company Vs. Hydrose and another

and Mathew Vs. Shaji Mathew. In both these decisions, the

Division Benches held that the conditions of the policy covers the

risk of a pillion rider and therefore the Insurance Company is

bound to pay. Therefore, in the light of the clarificatory circular

coupled with the decisions of the Division Bench, it has to be held

that the package policy covers the risk of a pillion rider and

therefore the Insurance company is liable. The award does not

suffer from any infirmity and so the appeal fails and dismissed

accordingly.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

sou.