IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 384 of 2009(A) --------------------------------- OPMV.1553/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA ............................................ APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KISHORE, S/O. GANGADHARAN, KALAMBUKATTU VEETTIL, CMC 9, CHERTHALA. 2. SATHYAM M.V., S/O. VASUDEVAN, MAPPILASSERIL HOUSE,KEYIPPURAM, MUHAMMA, CHERTHALA. 3. JITHESH, AMBADI, CMC 20, CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI.T.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.384 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in OP.(MV)No.1553/2002. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.41,500/=. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal that it is liable to pay the amount for the reason that the claimant was a pillion rider not covered by the policy. So far as an act only policy is concerned, the matter has been settled by a decision of the Apex Court in Tilak Sing's case and it was held that the status of a pillion rider is not of a third party but only of a gratuitous passenger and therefore he will not be covered by an act only policy. But as far as the present case is concerned, it is a B policy which can be comprehensive or package. In comprehensive policy and package policy, we find one condition - Clause 1 of Section 2 of the policy. There the insurance company undertakes to cover the risk : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.384 OF 2009 in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including person conveyed in or on the motor cycle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward. Subsequently, there was an addition to the policy. There was a term “except so far as it is necessary to meet requirements of Motor Vehicle Act". Regarding the first clause referred to, a Division Bench of this Court had considered the matter in New India Assurance Company v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and held that by virtue of the terms and conditions of the policy, the undertaking to cover the person travelling in a motor cycle other than for hire or reward, the company has to pay the liability. In another case - Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813) the Court considered the extended clause also and this Court held in Para 17 that going by the terms of the policy clearly the insurance company has undertaken the liability. "In such circumstances, we are of the view that the appeal filed by the owner is only to be allowed and we do so". The court also held that coverage of a gratuitous passenger in a policy is not diluted by the further case except so far as it : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.384 OF 2009 is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act as it is relatable to a claim by a person who was carried in the vehicle in the course of his employment. Therefore in the light of these two authoritative pronouncements of the Division Bench of this Court, the insurance company cannot escape from the liability and therefore I uphold the award of the Tribunal and dismiss the appeal. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.384 OF 2009