IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 2176 of 2008(B) --------------------------------- OPMV.1887/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT : --------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REP. BY ITS MANAGER 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION KOCHI-35 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRASANTH @ LALU AYANIYARATHALA VEEDU, KOKKOTTELA P.O.,ARYANADU. 2. V.PRAKASH, 75-A AYANIYARATHALA VEEDU, 4, KOKKOTTELA P.O.,ARYANADU. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 2176 of 2008(B) ORDER ON I.A.NO.2589 OF 2008 IN M.A.C.A.NO.2176 OF 2008 DISMISSED 06.11.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 2176 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV) No.1887/03. The question that araises for determination is whether the pillion rider is liable to be covered and the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify. The contention of the Insurance Company is that unless an additional premium is paid for the coverage of a pillion rider by following the dictum laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tilak Singh [2006 (2) KLT 884], it is not liable to pay. The Insurance Company's contention is that when premium is not paid, the status of a pillion rider travelling in a two wheeler is that of a gratuitous passenger and extending theory of Asharani's case the Insurance Company is not bound to indemnify. Now the policy admittedly in this case is a package policy. I am coming across the conditions of package policy and comprehensive policy everyday in this court. There is a condition of the policy under Section II(1)(i) wherein it provides that the Insurance Company is bound to M.A.C.A.No. 2176 OF 2008 -2- indemnify a person who is carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. This clause came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008 (3) KHC 522). In that decision the Division Bench held that by virtue of conditions of contract there is a coverage that, no wider premium is necessary and Insurance Company is bound to indemnify. Being a comprehensive or package policy therefore I hold taking note of that condition the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. I make it very clear that if the Insurance Company is able to make out a case that such a condition is not in the contract of Insurance between the insurer and insured in this case it is at liberty to move an application before this court for review with a notice to the other side. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm