IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2816 of 2008()
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NOORUDHEEN.N.V., NALAKATHA HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. MOHAMMED MANI.M, S/O.KOYAMMY,
For Petitioner :SRI.E.M.JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :17/09/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 2816 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 17h day of September, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred by the insurance company
against the award affixing the liability on the insurance
company to deposit the amount. The insurance company
would contend that the claimant was a pillion rider and
therefore he is not covered by the policy following the dictum
laid down in Tilak Singh’s case [United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh)2006 (2) KLT 884(SC). The
Tribunal found that the policy issued is not an act only policy
but it is a comprehensive policy. The Tribunal also found
that as per the policy conditions in Ext.B2 the insurance
company has undertaken to indemnify the first respondent,
liability on account of the death or bodily injury to any
person including the person conveyed in or on the motor
vehicle provided such person is not carried for hire or
reward. It is seen very clear from paragraph 11 of the
award. The very same provision had come up in
M.A.C.A. 2816 OF 2008
-:2:-
interpretation before the Division Bench of this Court
reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose
(2008 (3) KHC 522). This Court held that when the terms
and conditions of the policy cover the risk of such person
then the collection of additional premium is not necessary for
additional coverage. So in the light of the clause in the
condition and that the policy being a comprehensive policy it
has to be stated that the insurance company is bound to
indemnify the owner. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and
the same is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-