IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 1808 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.417/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY ----------------------------------------------------- 1. VIJESH K.P., S/O. GOPALAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, PUTHUKATTIL HOUSE, KAVILUPARA AMSOM DESOM, P.O.KUNDUTHODU, VATAKARA TALUK. 2. BINEESH P.B., S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, PARAMBATH HOUSE, NADAKUTHAZHA AMSOM, PUTHUPPANAM DESOM, P.O.PUTHUPPANAM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.JANARDHANAN FOR R.1 SRI.MANURAJ. K.J FOR R.1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No. 1808/07 ORDER ON IA No. 2183/07 IN MACA No.1808/07 DISMISSED 1.9.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1808 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadakara, in OP(MV) 417/03. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.33,751. The Insurance Company contended that since the policy does not cover a pillion rider, it may be exonerated from the liability. The Tribunal held that Ext. B1 document is a comprehensive policy or in other words the B policy and that the terms of the policy will reveal that it covers injuries sustained to the persons who was carried in the vehicle if they are not carried for hire or reward. The Tribunal also found that there is no contention that the said persons had been carried for hire or reward. The very same clause came for interpretation before the Division Bench of this court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Hydrose and Others [2008 (3) KHC 522 (DB)]. This court held that since there is a condition attached to the policy covering the persons in a motor cycle other than the one for hire or reward, the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the owner. MACA No. 1808/07 2 2. I agree with the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that no additional premium has been paid to cover a pillion rider. Casting of liability is not on the basis of payment or non payment of additional premium but on the basis of a specific contract entered into between the insurer and the insured, undertaking to cover a person who is carried on the motor cycle other than for hire or reward. So in the light of the said decision and the above principles, I hold that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in casting liability on the Insurance Company. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 1808/07 3