IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2407 of 2008()
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.RAZILAYYAN NADAR,
... Respondent
2. MANIAN, S/O.LEKSHMANAN, LALI BHAVANAM
For Petitioner :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :25/03/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. NO. 2407 OF 2008
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Basant, J.
The insurer/second respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant
before us. The claimant, a pillion rider claimed compensation against the
rider/owner of the motor cycle and the Insurance Company for personal
injuries suffered by him as a result of the motor accident which took place
on 5.11.2001.
2. Admittedly, it was not an Act only policy. It was a
comprehensive package policy. It is produced as Ext.A11/B1. The
Tribunal held that the claimant suffered loss on account of the negligence
of the rider of the motor cycle and came to the conclusion that the claimant
is entitled to a total amount of Rs.1,20,450/- as compensation along with
interest and costs. The Tribunal proceeded to specifically hold that the
insurer is liable to indemnify the owner/insured who is liable to
compensate the victim.
3. The short contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant in this case is that though the policy is a comprehensive policy,
M.A.C.A. NO.2407/2008 2
the insured’s liability of the pillion rider is not covered. Attention of the
learned counsel for the appellant was drawn to the decision of a Division
Bench of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v.
Hydrose, 2008(3) K.L.T. 778. Learned counsel was requested to explain
how the dictum laid down in the said case will not apply to the facts of the
instant case. Counsel accepts that the terms of the policy is identical in
both cases and submits that this appeal was preferred prior to the
pronouncement of the dictum in the said case. We are satisfied that in the
light of the decision in Hydrose’s Case (supra), there is no merit in the
challenge raised in this appeal. It is significant that there is no contention
that the terms of the policy is in any way different from the terms of the
policy referred to and extracted in the above decision.
4. The appeal, we must consequently hold, is without any merit and
the same is dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
JUDGE
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
JUDGE
sp/
M.A.C.A. NO.2407/2008 3
R. BASANT &
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
M.A.C.A. NO.2407/2008
JUDGMENT
25th March, 2009
M.A.C.A. NO.2407/2008 4