High Court Kerala High Court

M/S.Royal Sundaram Alliance … vs Noushad on 7 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
M/S.Royal Sundaram Alliance … vs Noushad on 7 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1045 of 2008()


1. M/S.ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. NOUSHAD, S/O.MOHAMMED, MANGATTIL HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. FASALUL ABID, S/O.MAMMUTTY,

3. NOUSHAD K.P., S/O.MAMMI, KUNNATH

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.MAMMU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :07/12/2009

 O R D E R
                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                  ...........................................
                 M.A.C.A.No.1045 OF 2008
                 .............................................
           Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009

                        J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the award of the

Claims Tribunal, Tirur in OP(MV)No.317/2006. The claimant

sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has

awarded him a compensation of Rs.85,000/= with 6% interest

and the insurance company was liable to pay the amount.

2. The insurance company raised a contention that as

per the policy, as no additional premium is received, the

insurance company is bound to indemnify even though it is

a package policy. Admittedly the vehicle involved in this case

is a private car covered by a package policy. There are

conditions in the package policy which would reveal that the

insurance company has undertaken to cover the risk of

death or bodily injury to any person including occupants

carried in the vehicle provided such vehicles are not carried

for hire or reward but except so far as it is necessary to

meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act. These

clauses have came up for consideration before the Division

: 2 :
M.A.C.A.No.1045 OF 2008

Benches of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V.

Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and in Mathew v. Shaji

Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813) and as per the decisions referred

to above, no additional premium is necessary and by virtue

of the conditions of the policy, the passengers in a private car

and pillion rider are covered by the policy. Subsequently on

16.11.2009 quoting the conditions of the policy, the Insurance

Regulatory and Development Authority has also issued a

circular. The above circular makes it clear that the occupants

carried in a private car and the pillion rider carried in a two

wheeler are covered under the package policy.

3. Therefore in the light of the two authoritative

pronouncements of this Court coupled with the circular

issued by the authority, it has to be held that the insurance

company is liable and therefore, nothing to interfere with

the award.

The appeal fails and it is dismissed.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE

cl

: 3 :
M.A.C.A.No.1045 OF 2008