IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 MACA.No. 1161 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.956/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP.BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD,KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2,4 TO 6 -------------------------------------------------- 1. REV.FR.JOSE CHITTILAPPILLY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,S/O.ANTHONY CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE,KATTOOR POST, NOW RESIDING AT MURINGOOR P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. JOSEPH P.V., S/O.VARKEY,PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, KORATTY SOUTH P.O., 3. BENNY,S/O.VARGHESE, THAZHUNGA HOUSE,PORUNNAMKUNNU, ALOOR VILLAGE,VELLANCHIRA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. ABDUL KHADER KUNJU, KAMBIVALAPPIL HOUSE,KAKKAZHOM, NEERKUNNAM P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. 5. ABDULLA,S/O.ABDUL REHMANKUTTY, ANNUS VILLA,IV-WARD, KAKKAZHAMMURI,AMBALAPUZHA PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA TALUK.( DELETED) 6. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, ANNAPOORNI MANDIR,CULLEN ROAD, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA. RESPONDENT NO.5 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 22-5-08 ON I.A.NO.1013/2008 MACA.NO.1161/2007 ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY,CAVEATOR SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R6 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R6 SRI.V.A.AJAI KUMAR FOR R2 & 3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1161 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the day 1st of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act is whether in the case of a motor accident, the risk of the passengers in the vehicle is covered by the Insurance Policy issued under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The facts in brief are these : The claimant was a Priest working at Muringoor Re-treat centre earning a monthly income of Rs. 6,000/-. On May 17, 2002 at about 1.30 a.m. while he was travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.KL- 8/R 3233 along Kollam-Alapuzha National Highway and when he reached at Karuvatta Market, the driver of the vehicle while overtaking another vehicle lost the control of the vehicle and collided head on with tempo van bearing Reg.No.KL-4/A 786. The claimant sustained serious injuries and he became completely paralysed. Alleging negligence against the drivers of both the vehicles, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs. MACA.No.1161/2007 2 3. Respondents 1 to 3 are the owner, driver and insurer of the Tata Sumo in which the claimant was travelling. Respondents 4 to 6 are the owner, driver and insurer of the tempo van bearing Reg.No.KL- 4/A 786. Respondents 4 and 5 remained absent before the Tribunal. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a written statement admitting the accident, but denied the liability. The third respondent, the insurer of the Tata Sumo in which the claimant was travelling filed a written statement admitting the policy, but attributed negligence to the driver of the other vehicle. The 6th respondent, the insurer of the tempo van filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A20 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. On the side of the respondents, Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent, the driver of the Tata Sumo in which the claimant was travelling and awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,19,720/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. Now the third respondent, the insurer of the Tata Sumo in which the claimant was travelling has come MACA.No.1161/2007 3 up in appeal contending that the policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle does not cover the risk of the claimant who was a passenger in the offending vehicle. 5. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the risk of the claimant who was a passenger in the offending vehicle is covered by the insurance policy issued in respect of the same. 6. The insurance policy of the offending vehicle, a copy of which is marked as Ext.B1, shows that it is a package policy. Counsel for he appellant fairly concedes that if it is a package policy, the risk of the passengers in a vehicle is also covered. That being so, we hold that the risk of the claimant is covered by the Insurance Policy Ext.B1. No other point is argued before us. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.1161/2007 4