IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2067 of 2007()
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THOMAS A.T.,S/O.THOMMANKUTTY
... Respondent
2. ANTONY JOHN,S/O.JOHN
3. ROY,S/O.JOHN,AMBOOKKAN HOUSE
For Petitioner :SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :19/08/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
M.A.C.A.No.2067 OF 2007
.............................................
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Here is a case where the claimant had sustained
injuries in a road accident while travelling as the pillion
rider. The Tribunal found that the accident took place on
account of the negligence of the rider and granted a
compensation of Rs.24,600/= to the claimant. It also found
that the pillion rider is not covered but ultimately directed
the insurance company to pay the amount and recover it
from the owner. It is against that decision, the insurance
company has come up in appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel. The short point that
arises for determination is regarding the liability of the
insurance company. By virtue of the decision of the Supreme
Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh
(2006(2)KLT 884), status of a pillion rider is that of a
gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy. But it has
been also held that when there is a comprehensive or
package policy, the terms and conditions of the policy will
cover the risk of the pillion rider. But, admittedly, in this
: 2 :
M.A.C.A.No.2067 OF 2007
case the vehicle is covered only by an act only policy.
Therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006(2)KLT 884) will
apply in all force to the facts of this case. When the policy
does not cover a pillion rider, insurance company cannot be
saddled with the liability. Ordinary recovery clause is
granted when the company is liable, but there are breach of
policy conditions which enables the company to get
reimbursement from the insured. As far as this case is
concerned, there is no coverage at all and therefore, the
insurance policy cannot cover the risk of a pillion rider.
3. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal directing the
insurance company to pay the amount and get it recovered
from the owner is unsustainable in law and liable to be set
aside and I do so.
4. In the result, the MACA is allowed. The insurance
company is totally exonerated from the liability and the
claimant is given an opportunity to proceed against
respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally for the realisation
of the amount.
Disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl
: 3 :
M.A.C.A.No.2067 OF 2007
: 4 :
M.A.C.A.No.2067 OF 2007
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
…………………………………….
A.S.NO.OF 2010
………………………………………
2nd day of August, 2010.
J U D G M E N T