IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 2218 of 2007() ----------------------- OP(MV)911/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3: ----------------------------------------------------- M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PONNANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST., NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MUHAJIR, S/O. VALIYAKATH VEETIL ADAMSHA, AGED 31 YEARS, DESAMANGALAM AMSOM, VADANAPPALLY DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. * 2. SHOBI, S/O. KANJIRAPARAMBIL APPUKKUTTAN, THIRUVATHRA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK.(D E L E T E D) *NAME OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DTD. 5/06/2008 IN I.A.NO.1247/08. 3. T.K.HUSSAIN, S/O. KUMIYAD MUHAMMADALI, MANDALAMKUNNU VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2864/2007 IN M.A.C.A.NO.2218/2007 DISMISSED 10/07/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2218 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)911/01. The insurance company is the appellant before me. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.34,700/- and the insurance company is directed to deposit the amount. The contention of the insurance company is to the effect that the claimant was a pillion rider in a two wheeler and the terms of the policy does not cover a pillion rider and therefore it is not liable to indemnify the owner and so has to exonerate from the liability. The Apex Court in the decision reported in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh 2006 (2) KLT 884(SC)] has considered this question and following the dictum laid down in Asha Rani case, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (2003 (1) KLT 165) held that pillion rider of a two wheeler cannot be treated on a different par. The Apex Court held that a M.A.C.A. 2218 OF 2007 -:2:- pillion rider will not be covered unless extra premium is paid in order to cover the pillion rider. 2. Again in the decision reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakran (2008 (2) KLT 936 (SC) held as follows. Section 147-Act policy-Liability of insurance company is not extended to a pillion rider of a motor vehicle unless requisite amount of premium is paid for covering his/her risk. 3. The Apex Court also held that pillion rider in a two wheeler was not to be treated as a third party. The Tribunal below would hold that since the premium of Rs.546 is paid and is also a comprehensive policy the burden is on the insurance company to prove that it does not cover a pillion rider. Ordinarily comprehensive policies are issued to cover own damage plus the compulsory third party liability. Just because the word comprehensive is used it does not cover the additional liability. So it is necessary that in these types of cases that the insurance policy is produced and the conscience of the Court is satisfied to the effect that no M.A.C.A. 2218 OF 2007 -:3:- additional premium has been collected to cover a pillion rider. In this case the Court was not satisfied with the materials available but at the same time the Court was not right in holding that the comprehensive policy will cover the risk of a pillion rider as well. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration on that point. I also want to further hold that if the policy does not cover the risk of a pillion rider he cannot be treated as a third party and therefore there may not be a direction to the insurance company to pay the amount and receive the amount from the owner but they have to be totally exonerated from the liability. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration whether Ext.B1 policy covers the risk of a pillion rider. For the purpose the appellant, the owner and the claimant, if desires, can produce documentary as well as oral evidence and the Court shall decide the matter in accordance with law. Since the owner was not represented before this Court I direct the insurance company to take out notice to the owner from the M.A.C.A. 2218 OF 2007 -:4:- Tribunal so that if he is ultimately saddled with the liability he would be aware of it and he can defend his case. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20.8.08. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-