IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 117 of 2009(C) ---------------------- OPMV.757/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SHINTO THOMAS, S/O. CHARANKULATH THOMAS ATTAPPADAM DESOM, MURINGOOR-THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE, LHANNA NAGAR P.O. MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OPMV ---------------------------------- 1. JAMES MATHEW, S/O.PAZHAYATTIL MATHEW, PUTHENCHIRA P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SAJI, S/O.AINIKKADAN SANKARAN, ATTAPPADAM, KORATTY P.O. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., SREEKUMAR BUILDINGS, SOUTH JUNCTION, CHALAKUDY. ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 117 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)757/03. The claimant, a 22 year old man, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.52,150/- and exonerated the insurance company from the liability on the ground that the vehicle was only covered by an Act only Policy. Aggrieved by that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Let me first consider about the quantum. The claimant had sustained a fracture on both the bones of the leg and he had expended Rs.26,150/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal has granted the same. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.13,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs.5,000/- for loss of amenities and three months loss of income and other incidental expenses incurred. There was no disability certificate produced. The Tribunal has M.A.C.A. 117 OF 2009 -:2:- considered the loss of amenities under the head of pain and sufferings as well and has awarded Rs.13,000/-+Rs.5,000/- =Rs.18,000/-. Therefore the compensation fixed appears to be just and reasonable and therefore it does not call for any interference. 3. So far as the exoneration of the insurance company from the liability is concerned admittedly the vehicle is covered by an Act only policy. The claimant was a pillion rider. It is perfectly covered by the decision of the Apex Court reported in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh)2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC). When no additional premium is paid and the policy is only an Act only policy, status of a passenger travelling in a two wheeler as a pillion rider is that of a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy and therefore he is not entitled to compensation. Therefore that finding also does not suffer from any infirmity. Hence I find no ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-