IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 2477 of 2008(A) ----------------------- OPMV.744/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SHIGIL, S/O.THILAKAN, AKILPARAMBIL HOUSE VALLIVATTOM VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. BABU, S/O.VENU, AKILPARAMBIL HOUSE, THAIVALAPPU DESOM, VALLIVATTOM HOUSE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. K.J.SHANIL, S/O.JAYATHILAKAN, KODUMADATHIL HOUSE, VALLIVATTOM.P.O, VELLANGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, MANAPPAT BUILDING, NORTH NADA, KODUNGALLUR THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2477 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)744/03. The claimant, a 18 year old mechanic sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. The court held that though it is a comprehensive policy no additional premium is paid and therefore exonerated the insurance company from the liability. It is challenging this finding the appellant has come up before this court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. Let me first consider about the liability of the insurance company. Admittedly the vehicle is covered by a package or comprehensive policy. It is true that no additional premium is paid. But in package policies and comprehensive policies there are conditions which are mentioned as II(i) which covers the risk of a person for the M.A.C.A. 2477 OF 2008 -:2:- death or bodily injuries caused while in the use of a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. The clause “except to the liability under the M.V.Act incorporated” had been considered in two decisions namely, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In both the cases the Division Bench has held that by virtue of the terms and conditions of the policy the insurance company is bound to pay the amount and no separate premium is necessary. Therefore in the light of these pronouncements the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company is not liable is vacated and it is made liable. 3. So far as the quantum is concerned a boy aged 18 years had sustained a fracture on the patella and he had undergone hospitalisation for six days. The injury on the patella was seen by the Tribunal and also he had seen the scar. Though no disability certificate was produced he had granted a compensation for loss of amenities to the extend of Rs.4,000/-. When the patella sustains a fracture the loss M.A.C.A. 2477 OF 2008 -:3:- of amenities will be more and therefore I enhance it by Rs.3,500/-. Similarly he would not have been in a position to do any work at least for a period of one month for which I grant Rs.1,500/-, thus making a total additional compensation of Rs.5000/-. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.5,000/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is also made liable for the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal as I find it is liable to indemnify the owner and the insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-