IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 982 of 2007(B) ---------------------- OPMV.686/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): /3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP.BY ITS ASST.MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFIECE,SHARANYA, BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVE. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SALAM A.M. AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O.NAJUMUDHEEEN,PANAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.,CHULLIYODE,S.BATHERY WAYANAD, NOW RESIDING AT NEELIYAT HOUSE, THALAKKADATHUR TIRUR-3 2. SHIJU,S/O.BALANCHETTY, KAPPUMKARA HOUSE,CHULLIYODE,NENMENI, WAYANAD DIST. 3. SHAMMER,S/O.HAKEEM,CHOLAYI HOUSE, BITHERKKAD,PATTAVAYAL,S.BATHERY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 982 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur in O.P.(MV)686/04. The claimant, a pillion rider sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the amount on the ground that the conditions of policy is not produced. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company in fairness had made available before me the policy as well as the conditions of the policy. I had gone through the policy. It is a package policy. S.II(i) of the conditions of policy read as follows. “Death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of M.VACT.” This very clause came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court reported in Mathew v. Shaji M.A.C.A. 982 OF 2007 -:2:- Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). The Division Bench of this Court considered the question in the light of another Division Bench ruling in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose 2008 (3) KLT 778. The Division Bench in the Mathew's case held that just because there is an incorporation of the word “except so far it requires' the M.V.Act will not exonerate the insurance company from the liability and the principle laid down in Hydrose's case will equally apply to the policy with such conditions. So in the light of the said decision of this Court nothing further remains to be done with the policy conditions reserving the risk of the person involved in the accident. Though on different head I hold that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount and therefore the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-