High Court Kerala High Court

Sreekumar.T.K vs Sabu.K.B on 18 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sreekumar.T.K vs Sabu.K.B on 18 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 470 of 2010()


1. SREEKUMAR.T.K, S/O.THANKAPPAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SABU.K.B, S/O. BABU,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.BABY

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOSHY THANNICKAMATTAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :18/06/2010

 O R D E R
                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                   ...........................................
                    M.A.C.A.NO.470 OF 2010
                  .............................................
             Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010.

                         J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the award of the

Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in OP(MV)No.2205/2002. The

claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident

and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.32,500/=

and exonerated the insurance company from the liability on

the ground that no additional premium is paid for coverage

of pillion rider. Against that, the claimant has come up in

appeal.

2. It is true that when it is only an Act only policy, the

person travelling in a two wheeler will have only the status

of a gratuitous passenger and he cannot be covered by the

conditions of the policy unless wider premium is paid. In this

case policy is a comprehensive policy. But in the case of

comprehensive or package policy, by virtue of a clarificatory

circular issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development

Authority dated 16.11.2009, it is made clear that persons

travelling in a two wheeler and in a private vehicle are

covered under the terms and conditions of the standard motor

package policy. The conditions of comprehensive/package

: 2 :
M.A.C.A.NO.470 OF 2010

policy were considered by the two Division Bench decisions

of this Court 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). Interpreting

the conditions, the court held that since terms and

conditions of the policy cover the risk of pillion rider, no

additional premium was necessary.

3. So, in the light of the clarificatory circular and the

decisions of this Court, comprehensive policy will cover the

risk of pillion rider and therefore exoneration of the insurance

company from the liability is not correct and therefore it

requires interference.

4. So, the appeal is allowed and exoneration of the

insurance company from the liability is set aside. It is

directed to deposit the amount awarded, but it shall not be

liable for the interest from 24.3.2008 to 4.3.2010. The

deposit shall be made within a period of 60 days from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Disposed of accordingly.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

cl

: 3 :
M.A.C.A.NO.470 OF 2010

: 4 :
M.A.C.A.NO.470 OF 2010