IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 2816 of 2008() ----------------------------------- OPMV.3044/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., GURUVAYUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-35. BY ADV. MR.E.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENT NO.1: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NOORUDHEEN. N.V., NALAKATHA HOUSE, PUNNA DESOM, MANATHALA VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 2. MOHAMMED MANI. M, S/O.KOYAMMY, 16 KARODI MADAI, METTUPALAYAM, COIMBATORE WEST. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. MACA.No. 2816 of 2008 ORDER ON I.A.3266/2008 IN MACA. NO.2816/2008 DISMISSED. 17/09/2009. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2816 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17h day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred by the insurance company against the award affixing the liability on the insurance company to deposit the amount. The insurance company would contend that the claimant was a pillion rider and therefore he is not covered by the policy following the dictum laid down in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh)2006 (2) KLT 884(SC). The Tribunal found that the policy issued is not an act only policy but it is a comprehensive policy. The Tribunal also found that as per the policy conditions in Ext.B2 the insurance company has undertaken to indemnify the first respondent, liability on account of the death or bodily injury to any person including the person conveyed in or on the motor vehicle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward. It is seen very clear from paragraph 11 of the award. The very same provision had come up in M.A.C.A. 2816 OF 2008 -:2:- interpretation before the Division Bench of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KHC 522). This Court held that when the terms and conditions of the policy cover the risk of such person then the collection of additional premium is not necessary for additional coverage. So in the light of the clause in the condition and that the policy being a comprehensive policy it has to be stated that the insurance company is bound to indemnify the owner. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-