IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 1707 of 2007(F) ---------------------------- OPMV.19/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): /2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL TOWERS, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATION OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): IST RESPONDENT & PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ * 1. SATHYAVRATHAN VIKRAMAN, S/O.SATHYAVRATHAN, THOTTUVARAMBIL VEEDU, THEKKUMBHAGAM, NEAR BRIDGE, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(DELETED) 2. VISWAJITH (MINOR), REP. BY HIS FATHER VIKRAMAN, S/O.SADANANDAN, VISWAJITH MANDIRAM, CHITTATTINMUKKU P.O., KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *R1 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDEER DATED 1.12.2009. ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1707 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st 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, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.(MV) 19/02 whereby the Tribunal has fixed the compensation at Rs.45,050/- and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. The insurance company had challenged the award especially on its liability on the ground that the claimant being a pillion rider is not covered by the policy. Admittedly the policy involved in this case is a comprehensive policy. It is a comprehensive policy with usual conditions. The usual conditions in the policy is usually shown as clause II(i) which reveals that “It will indemnify the insured in the event of death or injury caused by the use of motor vehicle to any person otherwise than for hire or reward.” It has also to be stated that subsequently there was an extension of the clause by incorporating or “subject to the liability under the M.A.C.A. 1707 OF 2007 -:2:- M.V.Act.” Both these clauses had come up for consideration before two Division Benches of this court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In both these cases the Division Bench had held that by virtue of the terms and conditions of the contract the insurance company has undertaken to indemnify the owner and therefore payment of additional premium is not necessary to cover such persons. So in the light of these pronouncements the insurance company is bound to pay the compensation. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-