IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1756 of 2008(A) ----------------------- OPMV.380/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT AND IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T. PRATHAPAN, LEELA SADANAM, NELLIVILA, KADAKULAM, MULLOOR.P.O, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. T. PRASAD, -DO- ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1756 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV)380/03 whereby the claimant has been awarded a compensation of Rs.27,240/-. The claimant admittedly was a pillion rider to a vehicle which got involved in the accident. The contention of the insurance company is that there is no additional premium paid for the coverage of the pillion rider and therefore as per the dictum laid down in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC) the insurance company is not bound to pay the compensation. On the other hand the learned counsel for the claimant would contend that it is a comprehensive policy and there is a condition in the comprehensive policy as S.2(1)(i) which covers the risk of a person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. The very same clause came up for M.A.C.A. 1756 OF 2008 -:2:- consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose [2008 (3) KHC 522(DB)] and the Division Bench held that when there is a specific clause covering the risk of a person carried in a vehicle other than for hire or reward on account of the contract between the parties, the insurance company is liable to pay the amount. In the light of the said decision and the fact that there is such a clause in the policy issued, the insurance company cannot escape the liability. Therefore there is nothing to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal and therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-