IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1530 of 2008()
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANIRUDHAN @ ANILKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 34
... Respondent
2. BALAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, THENNATTIL,
3. M.J.AMBROSE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :16/11/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1530 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P.(MV)212/03.
The claimant, a pillion rider sustained injuries in a road
accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of
Rs.63,200/- and made the insurance company liable to pay
the amount. Aggrieved by that decision the insurance
company has come up in appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the insurance
company as well as the counsel for R1 and R2. Learned
counsel for the insurance company very strongly contends
before me that the status of the person riding as a pillion
rider is that of a gratuitous passenger and unless an
additional premium is paid to cover that liability the
insurance company will not be liable to pay the amount in
M.A.C.A. 1530 OF 2008
-:2:-
the light of the principles laid down in Tilak Singh’s case
[United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh)2006
(2) KLT 884(SC).
On the other hand counsel for R1 and R2 would submit
that it is a comprehensive policy and therefore the conditions
of the policy cover the risk of pillion rider and therefore the
insurance company is liable to pay the amount. We have
come across conditions of comprehensive or package policies
in very many cases which contain a clause II(i) to the effect
that in case of death or bodily injury of a person carried on a
motor vehicle other than for hire or reward, is undertaken to
be covered by the terms and conditions of the policy. We
also find a clause after 2001 onwards “except the liability
under the M.V.Act”. Both these clauses have come up for
interpretation before two Division Benches of this Court
reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose
(2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew
(2009 (3) KLT 813). In both these decisions the Court
considered and held that when there is a condition in the
M.A.C.A. 1530 OF 2008
-:3:-
policy which undertakes the risk of a person carried in a
motor vehicle by virtue of the terms and conditions of the
contract the insurance company is liable to pay and in such
cases additional premium is not to be collected for the
purpose of coverage of a passenger. So in the light of the
two authoritative pronouncements of this Court since the
policy concerned is a comprehensive or a package policy as it
contains the conditions as usual, it has to be held that the
insurance company is liable to be affixed with the liability to
pay the compensation. Therefore on different reasons I
sustain the finding of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-