IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 3079 of 2008() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1061/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.MR.KKM.SHERIF MR.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ----------------------------- 1. KAVIRAJAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, CHANDRIKALAYAM, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, IRATTAKULANGARA MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. VINOD, S/O.PUSHPANGATHAN, SHANMUGHA VILASOM, KUDAVATHOOR, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. G.RAJESH, S/O.GOPINATHAN, REKHALAYAM, MANNADY P.O., KADAMPANADU. R1 BY ADVS.MR.K.SHAJ, MR.SAJJU.S. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.3079 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthilla in OP(MV)No.1061/1999. The claimants have been awarded a compensation of Rs.12,980/= and the respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount. The claimants were passengers in a private jeep. The jeep was covered by a comprehensive policy. The Tribunal found that being a comprehensive policy, it is covered and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. The usual practice is that the comprehensive policies are preceeded by conditions of policy and they are refered to as Section II(1) of the policy conditions. Prior to 2001, there was a provision whereby any person carried in the motor vehicle other than for hire or reward is covered by the terms of the policy. Subsequent to 2001, another provision has been incorporated to the policy condition that 'except so far as it relates to the liability under the Motor Vehicles Act'. Both : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.3079 OF 2008 these provisions have came up for consideration before this Court in the rulings reported in New India Assurnace Co.Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In Hydrose's case the court held that when the terms and conditions of the policy undertake to cover a person carried in the motor vehicle other than for hire or reward, then no separate premium is necessary and the conditions of the policy mandate the insurance company to cover the said risk. So far as the extended words are concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in Shaji's case held that just because the word except so far as it relates to the liability under the Motor Vehicles Act is incorporated, it cannot dilute the liability and the benefit conferred under Hydrose's case has to be extended to such type of cases as well. Being a comprehensive policy which would have one of these condtions it has to be stated that the insurnace compnay cannot escape from the liability. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.3079 OF 2008 : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.3079 OF 2008