IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 265 of 2007(G) ---------------------- OPMV.184/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- S.IBRAHIM, S/O.P.S.MOHAMMED, SHENI HOUSE, P.O.CHOKKADI, CHOKKADI VILLAGE, SULLA TALUK, SOUTH KANARA, KARNATAKA-574 212. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SREEJA SOHAN.K SANJANA R.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 --------------------------------------------- 1. ANEESA.K.M., D/O.MOHAMMED.K., RESIDING AT NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, KUMBLA P.O., KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. M.A.LATHEEF, S/O.MOIDEENKUNHI, BEEYEF VILLA, NEAR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, KUMBLA P.O., KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. 3. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KRISHNA BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, SULLIA-574 239. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A No.265 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Appellant before us is the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. He is the owner of the insured vehicle. The claimant had claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered in a motor accident. The 1st respondent is the driver. The 2nd respondent is the appellant herein and the insurer is the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal. The claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed. The 3rd respondent/insurer was absolved from liability on the ground that the policy does not cover the liability in respect of a claimant. The appellant herein was directed to pay the amount. 2. The appellant has come before this Court with the short contention that the policy of insurance issued by the insurer is a comprehensive package policy and under the terms of the said policy, the 3rd respondent is liable to indemnify the appellant herein. The counsel relies on the decision in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Hydrose [2008(3) KLT 778]. M.A.C.A No.265 of 2007 2 3. A copy of the policy of insurance is placed before us for perusal. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent was requested to take instructions. There is no dispute now that the policy of insurance is a comprehensive package policy and applying the dictum in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Hydrose (supra) the insurer cannot avoid the liability. 4. This appeal is, in these circumstances, allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that respondents 1 to 3 have joint and several liability to compensate the claimant. The 3rd respondent is directed to produce cheques/deposit amounts as directed in the impugned award. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-