IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 40 of 2008(A) -------------------------- OPMV.1572/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): /3RD RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING,PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUSAN JOSEPH, GEETHANJALI, NELLOOR BHAGOM,PERUMBAIKKATTUSSERY KARA, KUMARANALLOOR P.O., PERUMBAICKADU VILLAGE. 2. K. GOPINATHAN NAIR, RAJASREE BHAVAN, EAST KODUNGALLOOR,THRISSUR DIST. 3. SIBI MATHEW, EDAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, LALAM VILLAGE, LALAM P.O., MEENACHIL. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 40 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)1572/02. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident while he was riding as a pillion rider and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.22,500/- and repelled the contention of the insurance company regarding its non liability. It is against that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the insurance company. The respondents had not entered appearance before this Court. The Tribunal also directed the insurance company to pay Rs.15,500/- and the balance to be realised from the registered owner of the vehicle. 2. Now the short question that deserves consideration in this case is regarding the payment of premium under the personal accident coverage for a sum of Rs.15.70. It is normally covered by the conditions on the M.A.C.A. 40 OF 2008 -:2:- endorsement in I.M.T.64,70,71. A personal accident policy normally covers only when the persons to whom it is applicable had either suffered death or sustained permanent disability on account of the injury sustained in the accident. It is a contract of additional coverage in certain contingency when the wider premium of covering additional persons is paid. Here the difference is that only on the happening of death or permanent disablement two persons who are covered for the tariff collected will be entitled to compensation that too restricted to a sum of Rs.10,500/- each. Or in other words in order to cover its liability there should be either death or permanent disability. Now a perusal of the award especially paragraph 12 would reveal that there is no evidence of any permanent disability. So there is no death or permanent disability. So the persons who had sustained injuries could not be covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. So the finding of the Tribunal that just because Rs.15.70 is collected the insurance company is liable cannot be accepted. Therefore it is set M.A.C.A. 40 OF 2008 -:3:- aside and the insurance company is exonerated from the liability for the reason that the policy issued is only an Act only policy which does not cover the risk of a pillion rider who is having the status of a gratuitous passenger. In the result the MACA is allowed and the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company is liable to pay Rs.15,500/- is set aside and they are exonerated from the liability. The claimant is at liberty to proceed against respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition for reimbursement of the amount as they are jointly and severally liable. If by any chance the amount deposited by the insurance company is withdrawn by the claimant the insurance company is given the liberty to realise the amount so deposited from the owner of the vehicle. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-