United India Insurance Company … vs Davis on 6 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1530 of 2007()


1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DAVIS,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. LONAPPAN,S/O.THOMA,

3. N.J.PIYOOS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN

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

 Dated :06/08/2008

 O R D E R
                          M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                          --------------------------
                     M.A.C.A. No. 1530 OF 2007
                            ---------------------
                 Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008

                              JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in OP(MV) 1363/00. The

claimant sustained injuries in a road accident while travelling as a

pillion rider in a motor cycle. The Tribunal awarded a compensation

of Rs.66,600/- and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the

amount.

2. The Insurance Company in their written statement has

specifically contended that it was only an Act only policy and would

not cover the pillion rider and they are not liable to compensate the

petitioner. Unfortunately, this issue has not been considered at all by

the Tribunal and therefore the matter requires interference. Further,

it has been held by the Apex court that if it is only an Act only policy

then the status of a pillion rider would be that of a gratuitous

passenger as held in the decision reported in New India Assurance

Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [2003 (1) KLT 165 (SC)] and therefore, the

Insurance Company may not be liable to pay the compensation. But

MACA No. 1530/07 2

what all are the conditions in the policy etc. are all matters that has to

be considered by the Tribunal to arrive at that decision.

Therefore, without disturbing the finding on the quantum of

compensation, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for

considering the question as to whether the Insurance Company is

bound to indemnify the owner in a case of this nature and whether

admittedly the claimant is a pillion rider. For that purpose, both

parties are permitted to produce documentary as well as oral

evidence in support of their respective contentions. Since the owner

has not chosen to appear before this court, I direct the Insurance

Company to take notice to the owner from the Tribunal so that he can

also be heard.

Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on

16.9.08.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps

MACA No. 1530/07 3