IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1994 of 2007(D) ------------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.998/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT NO.3: ------------------------------------------------ M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., K.A.P.COMMERCIAL CENTRE, ALUVA BRANCH, R.S.ROAD, ALUVA, 683101 NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANILAL, S/O P.N.THANKAPPAN, PUTHANKUDI HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 2. SUNNY P.P., S/O PAPPU P.V., PERUMATTATHIL HOUSE, MANJAPRA VILLAGE, VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA. 3. DEVASSY O.P., OOKKAN HOUSE, THURAVOOR P.O., ANGAMALY. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. NO. 1994/2007-D: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 2539/2007 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 1994/2007-D DISMISSED 01/12/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1994 OF 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV) No.998/2002. The short point that arises for determination is about liability of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company would contend that being a pillion rider and no additional premium has been collected, the company is not bound to indemnify in the light of the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (2) KLT 884]. The learned counsel submits that there is no pleadings to the effect that pillion rider is not covered. Further it is submitted that it is only a package policy which contains the conditions of Section II(1)(i) which undertakes the risk of a person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. This clause came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008(3) KHC 522]. The Division Bench held that, when the contract covers the risk of such a person, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify. So in the light of the M.A.C.A. 1994/2007 -2- said decision and as there is no pleadings in the written statement and further being a package policy having a condition covering the risk of such a person there is no point in entertaining this appeal. Therefore appeal lacks merit and accordingly dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm