IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 1781 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.1098/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, REGIONAL TOWERS, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. ANEESH.K.A, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, THAZHACHAYIL HOUSE, PAIPPADU P.O, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. JAYALAL, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, JAYA BHAVAN, PALLIKKACHIRA, P.O, PAIPPADU, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. BINU PRABHAKARAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, VETTIKKAPPALLIL HOUSE, NALUKODY, CHANGANACHERRY. ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP FOR R3 SRI.S.MANU FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 1781/2008 ORDER ON I.A.NO. 2153/2008 IN M.A.C.A.NO. 1781/2008 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. 02.01.2009 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1781 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV) No.1098/2004. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 95,700/- and made the Insurance Company liable for the claim. The Insurance Company has challenged the award on the ground that no additional premium is collected for the coverage of a pillion rider and therefore it is not liable to indemnify the owner. The matter has been dealt with by the tribunal in paragraph 12 of the award. It is stated therein that the policy issued is a package policy and that it covers all the risk. We have come across conditions of the policy where there is a specific clause under Section II (1)(i) wherein the Insurance Company has directed to cover the risk of a person travelling in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. This clause came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008 (3) KHC 522]. The Division M.A.C.A.No. 1781/2008 -2- Bench held that when there is a specific condition covers risk of such a person, the Insurance Company cannot get exonerated from the liability. Therefore in the light of the decision and that the policy issued is a package policy with condition, I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the tribunal. Therefore the M.A.C.A. lacks merit and accordingly it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm