IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 2170 of 2008() --------------------------------- OPMV.1057/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD 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 RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY ------------------------------ 1. SATHY, KUNNUPURATH PUTHENPURA HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE. 2. AUGUSTIN, KARACKAL HOUSE, KOTTACHIRA.PO, KOTTAYAM DIST. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.2170 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of October 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P(MV)No.1057 of 2004. The claimant has been awarded a compensation of Rs.20,500/- and the insurance company is directed to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. It is the contention of the insurance company that the claimant was a passenger in a maruti van and the policy issued does not cover the risk of a passenger travelling in a private car. The Tribunal referred to the conditions of the policy and held that as per Section II(1)(i), it is found to cover the risk on account of bodily injury to any person including the occupants carried in the insured vehicle provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward. There is no case for the company that the person was travelling as a passenger carried on for hire or reward. The very same clause came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Hydrose and others(2008(3) KHC 522) and MACA 2170/2008 -:2:- this Court held that since the conditions of policy cast liability on the insurance company they cannot wriggle out of the contract and therefore the policy covers the risk of persons carried in such vehicles. In the light of the said decision, one cannot find fault with the Tribunal that the insurance company is liable. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-