IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 677 of 2008(G) -------------------------------- OPMV.612/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT : -------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REP. BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SULOCHANA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, "KARTHIKA HOUSE" P.O.KUTTIPPURAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. PRAKASAN P., S/O.KORAN POTTAMMAL HOUSE, P.O.ANAKKARA, OTTAPPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD DIST. 3. DILEEP NARAYANAN, PROPRIETOR ORGANIC BUSINESS PROMOTION SERVICE, D-2 NORTH AVENUE APARTMENT, LISIE JUNCTION KOCHI-18, ERNAKULAM DIST. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 677 of 2008(G) ORDER ON I.A.NO.838 OF 2008 IN M.A.C.A.NO.677 OF 2008 DISMISSED 28.10.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 677 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirur in O.P.(MV) No.612/2004. The claimant, a passenger in a private car sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. It is against that the Insurance Company has come up in appeal contending that since the status of the claimant is that of a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy for lack of payment of additional premium, he is not covered and therefore the Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated from the liability. The Tribunal considered the question and on a perusal of the conditions of the policy under Section II(1)(i), the Tribunal came to the conclusion that by the terms and conditions of the policy, the risk of a person travelling in a motor vehicle carried other than for hire or reward is covered by the said conditions and therefore the Insurance Company is liable to pay. The very same clause came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the M.A.C.A.No. 677 OF 2008 -2- decision reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008 (3) KHC 522] . The Division Bench of this Court held that as per the terms and conditions of the policy it covers risk of such a person and the Insurance Company cannot get exonerated from the liability. In the light of the said decision and consideration of the clause regarding conditions of the policy, the view taken by the learned Tribunal cannot said to be wrong. Therefore award does not require interference. The M.A.C.A lacks merit and accordingly dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm