IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1558 of 2007() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1419/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP.BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. HRIKRISHNAN, S/O.JANARDHANAN NAIR, USHUS, KIDANGOOR SOUTH. 2. AURN K.RAJAN, S/O.RAJAPPAN NAIR, KALAMPUKATTU HOUSE, KIZHAKUMBAGAM KARA, VETTIMUKAL P.O., ETTUMANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN - R1 SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.1106/08 IN MACA. NO.1558/2007 DISMISSED 27/06/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1558 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(MV)1419/04. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.77,430/- and declined to allow the contention of the insurance company that it is not liable to cover a pillion rider. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Amrit Lal Scood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar (1998 ACJ 531). At that point of time there was no incorporation of the sentence 'subject to the limits of the liability as laid down in the schedule hereto'. This 'subject to the limits of the liability as laid down in the schedule hereto' indicates collection of premium. So unless premium is collected one cannot fasten liability on the insurance company. The Apex Court in the decision reported in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (4) SCC 404)] M.A.C.A. 1558 OF 2007 -:2:- held that a pillion rider is having the status of a gratuitous passenger and therefore he is not covered by the policy. The apex Court has again held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakran (2008 (2) KLT 936(SC) that liability of insurance company is not extended to a pillion rider of a motor vehicle unless requisite amount of premium is paid for covering his/her risk. So unless there is materials to establish that additional premium has been paid, the risk of a pillion rider cannot be said to be covered. The counsel appearing for the parties had made available a copy of the policy and the collection of premium for perusal. In this policy Rs.650/- is collected for own damage, Rs.160/- for the third party injury or damage and another Rs.50/- as compulsory premium to owner/driver. So a perusal of the policy would conclusively show that a wider coverage is not there for taking a pillion rider. As has been held by the Apex Court, the pillion rider is not a third party and therefore the insurance company cannot be directed to pay the amount and recover it from the owner. Further it has to be stated M.A.C.A. 1558 OF 2007 -:3:- that when the policy does not cover risk of a pillion rider it is the very absence that matters and not the violation of or breach of the policy conditions. So the insurance company cannot be directed to pay and collect it. So, in the light of these discussions the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount is only to be vacated and I do so. The award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the liability of the insurance company is concerned and the claimant is at liberty to proceed against the owner of the vehicle for realisation of the amount for which he is liable as ordered by the Tribunal. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-