National Insurance Company Ltd vs T.M.Louis on 17 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1059 of 2008()


1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. T.M.LOUIS,S/O.MATHEW,AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUNNY,S/O.GEORGE,EDASSERY HOUSE,

3. THANKAKKA JOSEPH,NADEKKAL HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :17/06/2008

 O R D E R
                          M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                          --------------------------
                    M.A.C.A. No. 1059 OF 2008
                            ---------------------
                Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008

                              JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in OP(MV) 2946/03. The

appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the finding of the

Tribunal whereby it directed the Insurance Company to deposit the

amount.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contend

before me that the person who had claimed compensation, even if

proved to be a pillion rider, is not covered by the terms of the policy

and therefore applying the dictum laid down in United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (4) SCC 404] the Tribunal

should have exonerated it from the liability. Learned counsel also

had read out to me the written statement. But, I find there is no

specific pleading regarding the fact that the claimant was a pillion

rider and that he is excluded from coverage. It is more so for the

reason that the contention raised in the written statement is that the

claimant himself was riding the motor bike without a driving licence.

MACA No.1059/08 2

Therefore it pleaded exoneration of the liability. It is true that the

Tilak Singh’s case excludes the pillion rider but there are variety of

policies which takes in the coverage of a pillion rider as well. So

there must be a specific pleading to the fact that it is only an Act only

policy which does not cover the pillion rider. However, in the light of

the contention of the Insurance Company that he was a rider it

cannot be permitted to say otherwise at this stage. It cannot be

permitted to blow hot and cold in the same proceedings. Therefore, I

decline to interfere with the decision rendered by the Tribunal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps

MACA No.1059/08 3

MACA No.1059/08 4