IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 705 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.1125/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT: 3RD RESPONDENT; -------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. LATHAKUMARI, W/O.GANESAN, PAYYATTIL HOUSE, PERUVARAM, NORTH PARAVUR 2. K.A. ABDUL SALAM, PUTHUMA BED CENTRE, M.L.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 3. UNNI @ GANESAN, S/O.NARAYANANKUTTY, PAYYATTIL HOUSE, PERUVARAM, NORTH PARAVUR. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.705 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, N.Paravoor in O.P.(MV)No.1125 of 2003. The Tribunal itself found that there is no coverage for a pillion rider and as such the 3rd respondent insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. But, it held that the insurance company has to pay the amount and recover it from the first respondent in the claim application. It is against that decision the present appeal is filed. 2.It is true that when the right of a 3rd party is involved, normally directions were given to the insurance company to pay the amount and realise it even if there are breach of conditions of policies. First of all there must be a policy and secondly there must be a coverage. When it is found that there is a breach of policy conditions and when a 3rd party is effected, the court directs the insurance company to pay the amount and recover it from the owner. 3. So far as a pillion rider is concerned in the light of the dictum laid MACA 705/2008 -:2:- down in Thilak Singh's case((2006(2) KLT 884(SC), there is no coverage at all under the Act only policy and therefore there is no liability for the insurance company. Secondly, it has been held that a pillion rider also has only the status of a gratuitous passenger and is not a 3rd party to the proceeding. Therefore under these two captions there cannot be any liability saddled on the insurance company and the direction of the Tribunal to the insurance company to pay the amount is against the provisions of the policy and law and therefore it is liable to be interfered with. Therefore MACA is allowed and the direction of the Tribunal to the insurance company to deposit the amount is vacated. It is made clear that the claimant can realise the amount from the owner and driver, who are respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal. The amount deposited for the purpose of filing the appeal shall be returned to the insurance company. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-