IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 491 of 2009 ----------------------------------- OPMV.2541/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT / PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ K.P. KRISHNAVENI, W/O. PRAKASHAN, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. XIII/432-C, POOLERIKKUNNUMEL, POURNAMI, THRIKKAKARA-P.O, KOCHI-21. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.M.B.SANDEEP RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. PRAKASHAN, S/O. P.K. VASU, POURNAMI, THRIKKAKARA-P.O, KOCHI-21. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, VELIMANA BUILDINGS, THAMARASSERY, PIN - 673 573. ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR. FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.491 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of December 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant sustained the following injuries while the two wheeler on which she was travelling as a pillion rider capsized: (a) fracture shaft of right femur middle 1/3rd (b) fracture tibia middle 1/3rd 2. She claimed compensation from the owner and insurer of the two wheeler contending inter alia that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the owner/rider. The insurance company resisted the claim contending that the policy did not cover the risk of a pillion rider though it was a package policy. The Tribunal, after considering the documentary evidence available on record (Exts.A1 to A14) quantified the amount of compensation at Rs.90,000/-. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the insurance company that it would not be liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Resultantly, the Tribunal passed the impugned award and directed the owner-rider, who is none other than the husband of the appellant, to pay the compensation. 3. Learned Senior counsel who appears for the insurance company fairly concedes that in view of the clarification issued by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, the company will be liable to indemnify the owner in the case of a pillion rider even though it was a package policy. In that view of the matter, it is held that insurance company shall indemnify respondent No.1, owner/rider and pay the compensation to the appellant. M.A.C.A.No.491 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, is too meagre and inadequate. We are unable to agree. 5. We have carefully perused the materials available on record. In our view, the Tribunal has quantified the amount of compensation in a fair and reasonable manner and there is no room for any interference with the award as far as the quantum assessed by the Tribunal is concerned. Therefore, the plea for enhancement is rejected. Respondent No.2/insurance company shall deposit the amount awarded by the Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is made clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to get interest for the period of delay of 378 days in filing the appeal. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes