IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 2303 of 2008() -------------------------------------- OP(MV) NO.1105 OF 2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR. ........ APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, GROUND FLOOR, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.K.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT & PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JUDSON DECRUZ, S/O.JOSEPH DECRUZ, ARACKAL HOUSE, KUNJITHAI, VADAKKEKARA. 2. ALBERT MENDEX, S/O.MANUAL MENDEX, VALIYARA HOUSE, KUNJITHAI, VADAKKEKARA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.2740/2008 IN M.A.C.A.NO.2303/2008 DISMISSED 17/12/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2303 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P.(MV) 1105/03. The insurance company is the appellant before me. Though the respondents are served with notice they have not come up before this Court. The only question to be decided is whether the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company has to pay the amount and realise it from the owner is correct or not. The Tribunal found that the policy issued is only an Act only policy and the claimant was a pillion rider. In the light of the dictum laid down in Asha Rani's case, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani 2003 (1) KLT 165 and Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh)2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC) the status of a pillion rider in an Act only policy case would be that of a gratuitous passenger. Or in other words, he is not a person covered by the policy u/s 147 of the M.A.C.A. 2303 OF 2008 -:2:- M.V.Act. The Apex Court also held that such persons are not third parties and therefore the question of pay and realise also does not arise. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company has to pay the amount and realise it from the owner is vacated and it is totally exonerated from the liability but it is made clear that the claimant is entitled to realise the amount from respondent No.1 in the claim petition. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-