IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1605 of 2010()
1. RAJAPPAN,S/O.GOPALAN,AGED 39,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PRADEESH,S/O.PEETHAMARAN,MADASSERY HOUSE
... Respondent
2. SANU T.S,A/O.T.R.SASI,"NISARI",
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHIJU VARGHEESE
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :23/11/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
M.A.C.A.NO.1605 OF 2010
.............................................
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the award of the
Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in OP(MV)No.894/2003. The
claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident
and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of
Rs.43,000/=, but exonerated the insurance company from
the liability on the ground that additional premium is not paid
for the coverage of pillion rider. It is challenging the same,
the claimant has come up in appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well
as the insurance company. A perusal of the award makes it
very clear that the two wheeler involved in the accident was
covered by a package policy. There was a confusion
regarding the coverage of pillion rider, but by virtue of two
decisions of this Court and later by a clarificatory circular
issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development
Authority dated 16.11.2009, it has been cleared. As per the
clarificatory circular, after quoting the conditions of policy,
: 2 :
M.A.C.A.NO.1605 OF 2010
it was stated that the persons carried in a two wheeler and
passengers carried in a private vehicle are covered by a
standard motor package policy. Similarly in the decisions
reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose
(2008 (3) KLT 778) and in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009
(3) KLT 813) after analysing the conditions, the Division
Benches held that terms and conditions of the policy cover
the risk of pillion rider and no additional premium is
necessary.
3.Therefore in the light of the authoritative
pronouncements, the insurance company is liable to pay but it
has to be made clear that from the date 16.7.2008 to
17.8.2010 the claimant will not be entitled to claim any
interest for the reason that there was a delay.
4. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and finding
of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company from the
liability is set aside and the insurance company is made
liable. The insurance company is not liable to pay interest for
the period from 16.7.2008 to 17.8.2010. It is also made clear
that, if the cost ordered in the delay condonation petition is
: 3 :
M.A.C.A.NO.1605 OF 2010
not paid as ordered on or before 23.12.2010, the appeal will
stand dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
: 4 :
M.A.C.A.NO.1605 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