IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1213 of 2009()
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUNI KUMAR AND ANOTHER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
For Respondent :SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :08/10/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1213 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred by the insurance company
against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Ottapalam in O.P.(MV)738/06. The claimant
sustained injuries in a road accident while he was riding as a
pillion rider. The question that is posed for consideration is
whether Ext.P1 also covers the risk of a pillion rider.
Learned Tribunal held that since an additional premium of
Rs.70 is collected for the personal accident coverage of two
number of persons it covers the pillion rider and therefore
the insurance company cannot be exonerated from the
liability. Personal accident coverage policy is issued and it is
based on the happenings of certain contingencies. P.A.
coverage is generally extended and is covered by schedules
which would show that either death would have occurred or
there would have been loss of two limbs or of loss of one
limb or loss of sight of one eye or a permanent total
M.A.C.A. 1213 OF 2009
-:2:-
disablement. Suppose a person travels as a pillion rider
sustains any of these things then the P.A. coverage extended
by the policy for two persons will be applicable to them. In
this case there is no such injury sustained by the claimant
and therefore he cannot be covered under the P.A. coverage
as ordered by the Tribunal. Therefore the said finding
requires to be vacated.
2. But at the same time another question may loom
large for consideration as it is a package policy. This Court
has come across package policies and comprehensive policies
wherein S.II(i) condition is there which states that the risk of
a person who travels in a motor vehicle of the insured other
than for hire or reward is covered by the conditions of the
policy. This question also was considered when there is an
additional rider ‘except so far as it is necessary to satisfy the
requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act’. Both these
instances were considered by two Division Benches in the
decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji
Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). If those conditions are there
these decisions pin point regarding the liability of the
M.A.C.A. 1213 OF 2009
-:3:-
insurance company but I am informed by the learned counsel
for the insurance company that the matter is pending
consideration before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court.
Whatever it may be, now the question to be considered is
whether there are such conditions or not and what will be the
impact of such condition on the date of deciding the case
with the available decisions on the point. Therefore the
finding regarding the interse liability is set aside and he
matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration whether the insurance company is liable. For
the said purpose the insurance company as well as other
parties are permitted to raise all contentions which they want
to raise and produce all documents and evidence which they
choose and the matter be decided in accordance with law.
Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on
20.11.2009.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-