IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 2077 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.341/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- K.V.JIJO, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, C/O.VELAYUDHAN, KALASSERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. K.Y.UMMER, S/O.YOUSEF, KADAMBAYATH MOOLAYIL, PUTHENCRUZ.P.O, KARIMUGAL. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, D.O.NO.3, JOS TRUST BUILDING, CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN-682 035. ADV. SMT.M.LALITHA NAIR FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 2077 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV) No.341/2001. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident. The tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 16,663/- and exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability on the ground that the policy does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. So dissatisfied with the quantum as well as the exoneration of the Insurance company, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Insurance Company. A perusal of para 9 of the award would reveal that Ext. B1 policy is a comprehensive policy. Normally comprehensive policy contains the conditions under Section II(1)(i) wherein there is a stipulation that it covers the risk of a person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. That specific clause came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008 (3) KHC 522]. M.A.C.A.No. 2077/2008 -2- The Division Bench held that since there is a specific conditions in the policy, the Insurance Company will be liable to pay the amount. But unfortunately the conditions are not available before this court and same is also not produced before the tribunal and the matter has not been considered in that perspective by the tribunal. So it requires reconsideration. Since the matter has to go back, I permit the claimant to adduce evidence if he dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation. 3. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the tribunal with a direction to permit the parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and direct the tribunal to decide the quantum as well as liability afresh and pass appropriate orders. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 6.1.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm