IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 106 of 2010()
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, AGED 55 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. ABRAHAM (KUNJAVARACHAN),
3. SAJEEVKUMAR, MANAPUZHA, KEEZHUVANMAZHY,
For Petitioner :SRI.LAL GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :22/12/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
M.A.C.A.NO.106 OF 2010
.............................................
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the award of the
Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in OP(MV)No.1384/2002.
The point that arises for determination in the appeal is
regarding liability of the insurance company. The claimant,
a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the
Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.75,650/=
and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. It is
against that decision, the insurance company has come up in
appeal.
2. The contention of the insurance company is to the
effect that the vehicle is covered only by an act only policy
and additional premium of ` 63/= has been collected for
personal accident coverage of two persons in accordance
with the endorsement IT 64.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents would
contend before me that since additional premium is received,
it covers the risk of the pillion rider and so there is nothing
: 2 :
M.A.C.A.NO.106 OF 2010
to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal.
4. The law is fairly well settled on the question of act
only policy. By virtue of the authoritative pronouncement of
the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Tilak Singh [2006 (2) KLT 884] status of the pillion rider is
that of a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy and
therefore he is not liable to be indemnified by the insurance
company. In the case of package policies, Insurance
Regulatory and Development Authority issued a clarificatory
circular dated 16.11.2009 wherein after analysing the
condition it was clarified that the person carried in two
wheelers and the persons travelling in private vehicles are
covered under the terms and conditions of the standard motor
package policy. So if the vehicle is covered by a package
policy, then no additional premium is necessary. In the light
of Tilak Singh’s case in order to have coverage to a pillion
rider unless additional premium is paid, insurance company
cannot be saddled with the liability.
5. Here is a case where the insurance company has
taken a sum of ` 63/= as personal accident coverage for two
: 3 :
M.A.C.A.NO.106 OF 2010
persons and it can also be seen that it is done under
endorsements. It is contended that in order to attract the
endorsement in the policy, either there must be death or
100% disability for the person. So the contract of insurance
envisages a specific situation for the coverage of personal
accidents. I am not going deep in to that reason as these
conditions are not produced before the Tribunal. Parties
are to be given an opportunity to explain or challenge the
correctness of the same.
6. So without expressing anything on merit with
respect to the same, I send back the case to the Tribunal
with a direction to the insurance company to produce the
conditions on which they rely for non liability and also permit
the other parties to adduce evidence in support of their
respective contentions and let the matter be disposed of in
accordance with law. The claimant has entered appearance
before the court, so junction of the owner is absolutely
necessary. Therefore the insurance company is directed to
take out notice to the owner as well so as to have a full
fledged trial and dispose of the matter in accordance with
: 4 :
M.A.C.A.NO.106 OF 2010
law. I make it clear that the question of quantum cannot be
re-agitaged and it has reached conclusiveness. Parties are
directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.1.2011.
Disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
: 5 :
M.A.C.A.NO.106 OF 2010
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
…………………………………….
A.S.NO.389 OF 2001
………………………………………
11th day of November, 2010.
J U D G M E N T