IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1664 of 2009(S)
1. SUBEESH, S/O.REVI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VASU, S/O.DAMODARAN,
... Respondent
2. MANISH, S/O.REVI,
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SMT.ANEY PAUL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :17/08/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. No. 1664 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = == =
DATED THIS, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in O.P. (MV) No. 463 of 2004. The
claimant, a 24 year old young man, sustained injuries in a road accident and
the Tribunal awarded him an amount of Rs. 27,450/-; but exonerated the
Insurance Company from liability on the ground that the policy does not
cover the pillion rider. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up
in appeal.
2. Heard the counsel and perused the records. The learned counsel
had made available before me the certified copy of Ext. B1 policy produced
before the Tribunal. The policy is a comprehensive package policy. By
virtue of the clarificatory circular issued by the Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority on 16.11.2009, persons carried in a two wheeler
are covered under the terms and conditions of the standard motor package
policy. The issue came up for consideration before two Division Benches
of this Court in New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3)
KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009(3) KLT 813) and in both
MACA 1664/2009 2
these decisions, this Court held that the terms and conditions of the policy
cover the pillion rider also and therefore, no additional premium is
necessary. Therefore, in the light of the clarifictory circular coupled with
the decisions of this Court (supra), the Insurance Company is held liable and
I set aside the finding regarding exoneration of liability.
3. The next point is regarding the enhancement. An young man had
sustained a fracture on the maxillar bone and fixation was done. He was
treated as an inpatient from 3.4.2004 till 7.4.2004. He had incurred medical
expenses of about Rs. 3,450/-. Taking into consideration that the fracture is
on the maxillar bone and there would have been some temporary disability
as well as pain even for movement of the face, I feel that compensation for
pain and suffering can be increased by Rs. 3,000/-, thereby entitling the
claimant to have an additional compensation of Rs. 3,000/-.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded
an additional compensation of Rs. 3,000/- with 8.5% interest on the said
amount from the date of petition till realisation. It is also made clear that
the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire amount awarded and the
finding of exoneration of liability is set aside. Therefore, the Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the entire amount and as time has passed,
MACA 1664/2009 3
when an application is moved, the entire compensation amount be disbursed
to the claimant.
sd/-
M.N. KRISHNAN,
(JUDGE)
// true copy //
P.S. To Judge.
KNC/-