IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 115 of 2008() ------------------------------------ OPMV.1417/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY ------------------------------ 1. JEEVA ROMANS, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O.ROMANS, SARALVILA HOUSE, MATHOOR KONAM, ARUMANI P.O., KANYAKUMARI DIST., PRESENT ADDRESS: KIZHAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, BETHANY ROAD, THIRUVALLA-1. 2. C.KAMARAJ, S/O.CHELLAKKAN, MANNADAPPAN KUZHIVILAI VEEDU, KUZHICHAL, ARUMANAI P.O., KANYAKUMARI DIST., PRESENT ADDRESS: KIZHAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, BETHANY ROAD, THIRUVALLA-1. 3. K.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR, KALIYIKKAL HOUSE, HEAVENALLEY, IDUKKI DIST. R1 BY ADV.MR.S.SUBHASH CHAND R3 BY ADVS.MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN MR.P.P.BIJU THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.137/2008 IN MACA. NO.115/2008 CLOSED 04.11.2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.115 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P(MV)No.1417/2001. The claimant sustained injuries in an accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.53,860/= with 6% interest. The insurance company was liable to pay the amount and it is challenging that decision, the present appeal is preferred. 2. The learned counsel for the insurance company has contended before me that the vehicle was a private vehicle and no additional premium has been paid and therefore, by extending the principle in United India Insurance Co.Ltd.v. Tilak Singh [(2006(2)KLT 884(SC)], the insurance company is not bound to pay the amount. But, unfortunately such a contention has not been raised before the Tribunal at all and therefore, it has not been considered. 3. Now, at this belated stage, an application is filed for amendment of the written statement and it is not proper : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.115 OF 2008 on the part of this Court to consider that application after such a long time. Further, it can also be seen that the policy issued is a comprehensive policy which normally contains a clause that death of or bodily injury arising out of the use of a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward is covered by the conditions of the policy. The two Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Co.Ltd.v. Hydrose (2008(3) KLT 778) and in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009(3)KLT 813)have considered the impact of the said condition and held that by virtue of the terms of the contract, the insurance company is bound to pay the amount though no additional premium is paid. So, in the absence of such a contention and further, being a package policy which normally contains this clause, I am not inclined to entertain this appeal on that ground. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.115 OF 2008