IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 3028 of 2008() ------------------------------- OPMV.2195/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 5TH RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOTTAYAM.REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDINGS, JEWS STREET,PADMA JUNCTION,KOCHI-682035. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S)/ CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & ADDL. 4TH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. RAJAN KUNJU,MUKALEPURIYADAM, KOOTHRAPPALLY.P.O. 2. LALLY THOMAS,KINATTUKARA(H),KALAKETTY.PO PINNAKKANADU, PALA. 3. P.D.DAMODARAN, PUTHENPURAYIL, KANAYANKAVAYAL, PERUVATHANAM. 4. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, COCHIN. 5. JOSEPH JOHN, MUKALEL PURIYADAM, KOOTHRAPPALLY.P.O, KARUKACHAL,CHANGANASSERY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 3028 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)2195/04. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.31,118/-. The Tribunal found that R3 and R5 are liable to pay the compensation in equal halves. It is aggrieved by that decision the 5th respondent has come up in appeal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent that being a pillion rider he is not covered by the policy and so the Tribunal should have exonerated it from the liability. The learned counsel for the insurance company would contend before me that though the Tribunal has relied upon S.II (1) (i) of the policy conditions there is a stipulation that it is all subject to the liability under the Motor Vehicle's Act and therefore it cannot be made liable to pay the amount. It is M.A.C.A. 3028 OF 2008 -:2:- true that by virtue of the decision in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (2) KLT 884(SC) if it is only an Act only policy and no additional premium is paid the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose [2008 (3) KHC 522(DB) a Division Bench of this Court has held that if the policy condition specifically covers the risk then it cannot be get exonerated from the liability. I had the opportunity to consider this point in the decision reported in 2008 (4) KLT 628 (Babu Mathew v. Biju Mathew). There I have held that in a comprehensive policy there is no provision in the tariff for payment of extra premium for passenger in a private car and therefore they are covered without paying any additional premium. I have also referred to an elaborate decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 2008(2) TAC 888 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Brijlata & others). So in the light of the these discussions M.A.C.A. 3028 OF 2008 -:3:- and decisions and the view taken I hold that this is a case also where the insurance company is bound to pay the amount and it cannot be get exonerated from the liability. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-