IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 MACA.No. 151 of 2011(D) ------------------------------ (AGAINST THE AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR IN O.P.(MV)2741/03) APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE OPMV -------------------------------------------------------- THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THRISSUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL MANAGER, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THE OPMV -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANU GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, EROONIKKAL HOUSE, PALLIKKAD, PARUVASSERY, VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD-678 683. 2. E.D.GEORGE, S/O. DEVASSY, EROONIKKAL HOUSE, VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD-678 683. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 151 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Since the very contention of the insurance company is not taken into consideration by the Tribunal I do not want the parties to come to this Court and therefore the appeal is disposed of at the admission stage itself. I had already passed an order in M.A.C.A.2665/10. It was preferred against O.P.(MV)2738/03 which is also a subject matter of the common award. The contention of the insurance company is that the Maruthi van was covered only by a statutory policy and the claimant being an occupant of the said vehicle was only a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy and therefore the insurance company is not liable. The position is very clear in the light of the dictum laid M.A.C.A. 151 OF 2011 -:2:- down in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh)2006 (2) KLT 884(SC) that even on a scooter which is covered by an Act only policy when a pillion rider is taken the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that his status is that of a gratuitous passenger and unless additional premium is paid he is not covered. The same is the principle that has to be extended to the passengers in a private vehicle covered by an Act only policy. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority had clarified the position by the clarificatory circular dated 16.11.2009 that passengers carried in a private vehicle will be covered if it is only a package policy. So this is a matter which requires consideration. Unfortunately the Tribunal has not adverted to this fact at all and therefore the award under challenge has to be set aside and I do so. M.A.C.A. 151 OF 2011 -:3:- Therefore the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the liability of the insurance company is concerned and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to consider the question of liability of the insurance company and thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law after hearing all concerned. Since the appeal is disposed of in the admission stage itself without notice to others, the insurance company is directed to take out notice to the respondents, i,e. owner, driver and the claimants before proceeding further in the matter. The insurance company is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.2.11. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-