IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 287 of 2009()
1. MUHAMMADALI, AGED 44 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THAJUDHEEN,
... Respondent
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SMT.JEENA JOSEPH
For Respondent :SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :08/12/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
M.A.C.A.No.287 OF 2009
.............................................
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the award of the
Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in OP(MV)No.593/2004. The
claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident
and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of
Rs.13,000/= and exonerated the insurance company from
the liability. It is against that decision, the claimant has come
up in appeal.
2. Let me first consider about the liability of the
insurance company. Para7 of the award makes it clear that
the vehicle is covered by a package policy. The Insurance
Regulatory and Development Authority has issued a circular
dated 16.11.2009 which makes it clear that the insured’s
liability in respect of occupants carried in a private car and
a pillion rider carried in two wheeler is covered under the
standard motor package policy. Therefore by virtue of this
circular the contention that a package policy will not cover
the risk of a pillion rider does not survive for determination.
: 2 :
M.A.C.A.No.287 OF 2009
The two Division Benches of this Court reported in New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778)
and in Mathew v.Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813)
considered the clause in Section II(1)(i) i.e., death or bodily
injury to any person including occupants carried in motor
vehicle provided such occupants are not carried for hire or
reward but except so far it is necessary to meet the
requirements of the motor vehicles Act. In both those cases,
the Division Benches had taken the view that by virtue of
the conditions of the policy, the insurance company is bound
to pay the amount.
3. Therefore, I set aside the finding of the Tribunal and
make the insurance company liable for the amount. Now
the second question is regarding the quantum. The
learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal has
awarded an adequate compensation. A perusal of the award
would reveal that the claimant had sustained fracture of the
distal end of his right radius and he was treated in a hospital
as inpatient for one day. He was aged 40 years and as a
business man by profession, I feel the following compensation
: 3 :
M.A.C.A.No.287 OF 2009
can be awarded.
4. No medical expense was granted. He was treated
in a private hospital and his hand was under plaster cast.
I am inclined to grant Rs.1,000/= towards medical expenses.
Considering the age of the person, I fix his monthly income
at Rs.2,000/= and thereby grant Rs.1,000/= more towards
loss of earnings. The Tribunal has only awarded him a
compensation of Rs.2,000/= towards loss of amenities and
enjoyment in life. Certainly the fracture would have caused
temporary disability and loss of amenities and enjoyment in
life and he would have been prevented from doing any
work. Therefore taking into consideration all these aspects, I
award Rs.3,000/= towards loss of amenities and enjoyment.
Therefore the claimant will be entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs.5,000/=.
5. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the
claimant is awarded an additional compensation of
Rs.5,000/= with 7% interest from the date of the petition till
realisation and the respondent insurance company is
directed to deposit the said amount as well as the amount
: 4 :
M.A.C.A.No.287 OF 2009
already awarded by the Tribunal for the reason that finding
of the Tribunal that the insurance company is not liable is
set aside. The insurance company is directed to deposit the
amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment.
Disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl
: 5 :
M.A.C.A.No.287 OF 2009