IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 1690 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.1238/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT : 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER MOTOR THIRD PARTY CELL, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. DILIP KUMAR, MUCHETTUKALAPPURAYIL HOUSE ONAMTHURUTHU, KOTTAYAM 2. ANIL KUMAR, MOOLAKKATTUKAROTTU HOUSE ONAMTHURUTHU, KALPPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 3. GEORGE KOSHY, MANNIL HOUSE, KEEZHUKARA, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No. 1690/07 ORDER ON IA No. 2018/07 IN MACA No.1690/07 DISMISSED 29.8.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1690 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in OP(MV) 1238/03. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.44,100/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- on the basis of B1 policy. Aggrieved by that decision, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend before me that the collection of premium of Rs.28/- was not for covering the pillion rider in a vehicle and that it was an Act only policy. But it is dealing with a condition of personal accident to unnamed passengers other than insured, the driver and the cleaner. Learned counsel has also produced the conditions of policy which would indicate that it only covers cases of death, loss of two limbs, loss of sight of two eyes, loss of sight of one eye and permanent total disablement from injuries other than named above. Learned counsel would content that it is not a matter that comes with in the province of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for adjudication and it is to be adjudicated between the insured and the insurer on the submission of an appropriate application. MACA No. 1690/07 2 3. Whatever it may be, one has to understand whether it covers a pillion rider or not. A perusal of the conditions of the policy makes it clear that it does not do so. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that it covers, appears to be incorrect. But, I feel the conditions of the policy have to be produced, got exhibited and explained before the Tribunal so that the Tribunal will be able to understand the implication of the terms and conditions of the policy in arriving at a decision. Unfortunately, the Insurance Company has not produced the conditions of the policy nor had examined any officer to prove the contentions. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. The award under challenge is set aside, so far as it relates to the inter se liability. The competency of the Tribunal to decide the issue may also be considered. The Tribunal shall permit both parties to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and thereafter shall dispose of the matter in accordance of the law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20.10.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 1690/07 3