IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 2173 of 2008(B) ----------------------- OPMV.1172/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI - 35. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.B. VINOD, KALAYATHUNKAL, THALANADU P.O. 2. TOM J. PLATHOTTAM, PLATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, ADIVARAM P.O. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. No. 2173/2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO. 2586/08 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 2173/2008 DISMISSED . SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. 28.10.2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 2173 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(MV) No. 1172/05. The claimant has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 34,400/- and the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount. The claimant was a passenger in a private Maruthi Van that got involved in the accident. The contention of the Insurance Company is that the policy issued does not cover the passenger in a private vehicle as no wider premium is paid. Therefore the learned counsel would contend that in the light of the dictum laid in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (4) SCC 404] the apex court held that the status of the person would be that of a gratuitous passenger and therefore that person is not covered by the policy. The Tribunal considered the contention in para 12 of the award. It has extracted the conditions of the policy as follows: “Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums M.A.C.A.No. 2173/2008 -2- which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of - Death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the insured vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured. - Damage to property other than property belonging to the insured” This Clause came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008 (3) KHC 522] . It was held by the Division Bench that since the terms and conditions of the policy covers the risk of such a person the Insurance Company cannot get exonerated from the liability. So in the light of the said decision I cannot fault with the Tribunal for arriving such a decision casting liability on the Insurance Company. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm