IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 64 of 2009()
1. SINDHU BIJU PULIYANIYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SWAPNA.K.MATHEW, NO.428,N.S.NAGAR,
... Respondent
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.ELIAS
For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :19/10/2009
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------
M.A.C.A. NO. 64 OF 2009
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims
Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in OP(MV) No. 786/2005. The Tribunal
awarded a compensation of Rs. 34,800/- and exonerated the
Insurance Company from the liability on the ground that the policy
does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. It is against that decision the
claimant has come up in appeal. Referring to the clause of the policy
which reads as follows:
“Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in
the schedule hereto the company will indemnify the
insured in the event of an accident caused by or
arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against
all sums which the insured shall become legally
liable to pay in respect of:-
(i) death of or bodily injury to any person including
occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such
occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but
except so far as it is necessary to meet the
requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the company
shall not be liable where such death or injury arises
out of and in the course of the employment of such
persons by the insured”.
M.A.C.A. NO. 64 OF 2009 2
(ii) damage to property other than property
belonging to the insured or held in trust or in the
custody or control of the insured.”
The very clause came up for consideration before a Division
Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2009 (3) KLT 813
Shaji Vs. Shani Mathew. In paragraph 17 of the award the Division
Bench held that going by the terms of the policy the Insurance
Company has undertaken the liability. In such circumstances, we are
of the view, the appeal filed by the claimants is only to be allowed
and we do so. In para 17, this court held that “we can safely hold
that this is a case where under the contract of Insurance, the
Insurance Company has undertaken an extended liability by virtue of
the words employed”. We have already dealt with the word, which
according to the Insurance Company clarify the liability and found
that there is no merit in the contention that the words limit or abridge
the liability. So in the light of the decision it has to be held that the
terms of the policy squarely covers the risk of the person and
therefore, Insurance Company is bound to pay the amount.
M.A.C.A. NO. 64 OF 2009 3
In the result, M.A.C. A. is allowed and the award of the Claims
Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability is set
aside and it is made liable and directed to pay the amount within a
period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
ln.