IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 1973 of 2008(E) ----------------------- OPMV.691/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM ------------------------------- APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL TOWERS, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.K.PANICKER RESPONDENTS/ IST RESPONDENT & PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ 1. ABDUL SALAM, 146 A, SREERANGAM, MUBARAK MANZIL, (AMBALATHAKIDYIL) PUZHAVATHU P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 2. ABDUL SALAM, THYYIL HOUSE, PUZHAVATHU P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ------------------------- M.A.C.A No.1973 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(M.V).No.691/05. The claimant has been awarded a compensation of Rs.36,500/- and the Insurance company is directed to pay the amount on the ground that the policy is a package policy. Dissatisfied with the liability fixed on the Insurance Company, it has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for the Insurance Company. 3. The attempted point is to the effect that since no additional premium is paid for the coverage of a pillion rider, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation. The learned counsel would argue that the principle of payment of premium is a must for coverage as per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Tilak Singh's case. Now admittedly, the policy issued is a package policy. By virtue M.A.C.A. No.1973/08 2 of a clarificatory circular issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Developmental Authority dated 16.11.2009, it has been clarified that a person travelling in a private car, passengers carried in a two wheeler are covered by the terms and conditions of the Standard Motor Package Policy. Further the policy conditions came up for consideration before two Division Benches of this court in the decisions reported in 2008 (3) KLT 778 and 2009 (3) KLT 813, New India Insurance Company Vs. Hydrose and another and Mathew Vs. Shaji Mathew. In both these decisions, the Division Benches held that the conditions of the policy covers the risk of a pillion rider and therefore the Insurance Company is bound to pay. Therefore, in the light of the clarificatory circular coupled with the decisions of the Division Bench, it has to be held that the package policy covers the risk of a pillion rider and therefore the Insurance company is liable. The award does not suffer from any infirmity and so the appeal fails and dismissed accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. sou.