IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1375 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.2053/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CITY BRANCH, P.B.NO.57, SIMIS COMPLEX, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENTS: ADDL. PETITIONERS & 1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JANAKY K.V., W/O. LATE ACHUTHAN, NETTISSERY HOUSE, (MARASSARI), P.O.NETTISSERY. 2. SURENDRAN N.A., S/O. LATE ACHUTHAN, NETTISSERY HOUSE (MARASSERI), P.O.NETTISSERY. 3. AMBUJAKSHI N.A., D/O. LATE ACHUTHAN, NETTISSERY HOUSE, (MARASSERI), P.O.NETTISSERY. 4. VIJAYA N.A., D/O. LATE ACHUTHAN, NETTISSERY HOUSE, (MARASSERI), P.O.NETTISSERY. 5. BABU N.A., S/O. LATE ACHUTHAN, NETTISSERY HOUSE, (MARASSERI), P.O.NETTISSERY. 6. SAJAYAN N.A., S/O. LATE ACHUTHAN, NETTISSERY HOUSE, (MARASSERI), P.O.NETTISSERY. 7. SAJITHA N.A., D/O. LATE ACHUTHAN, NETTISSERY HOUSE, (MARASSERI), P.O.NETTISSERY. 8. SUDHEESH N.A., S/O. LATE ACHUTHAN, NETTISSERY HOUSE, (MARASSERI), P.O.NETTISSERY. 9. N.DILEEP, S/O. GOPALAN, NAMBANATH HOUSE, MANNUTHY, P.O.MANNUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN - R7 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.1624/2007 IN M..A.C.A.NO.1375/2007 DISMISSED 6/08/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1375 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in OP(MV) 2053/01. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount. The appeal is preferred on the ground that being a pillion rider, the claimant is not covered by the policy. It has relied upon the decision of the Apex court reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC)]. It was a case where the Apex court was considering the question with respect to a pillion rider on a vehicle for which there was only an Act only policy. Then the Apex court held that applying the dictum laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [2003 (1) KLT 165 (SC)] the pillion rider also would become a gratuitous passenger in such cases is not covered by the policy. So these questions are to be decided on the basis of the policy conditions and contract of insurance entered into between the insurer and the insured. MACA No.1375/07 2 2. Learned counsel for the owner had made available before me a copy of the policy with the policy conditions which reads as follows: Section II – Liability to Third Parties “Subject to the limits of Liability as laid down in the Schedule here to the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of accident caused by or arising out of the use of Motor Cycle against all sums including claimant’s cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (a) death or bodily injury to any person including person conveyed in or on the Motor Cycle provides such person is not carried for hire or reward.” 3. So a reading of this clause would indicate that the liability with respect to a person travelling is covered, provided he is not a passenger carried for hire or reward. This question specifically arose for consideration before the Division Bench of this court in MACA No.1380/08. The Division Bench has extracted the very same condition and held that “The above clearly states that the insurer has undertaken liability in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including a person conveyed in or on the motor cycle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward. Here no limitation of liability is mentioned in the Schedule.” Therefore the Division Bench took the view that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. MACA No.1375/07 3 The Division Bench has taken note of the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (4) SCC 404] as well as Amrit Lal Sood and Another v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and Others [1998 (3) SCC 744] to arrive at this decision. 4. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company that it is not liable to cover the pillion rider in this case cannot be accepted for the reason that it is specifically covered by the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1375/07 4