IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 2351 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.275/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PARAMESWARA PANICKER S/O. VASUDEVAPANICKAR, KOCHUPURACKAL VEEDU, NEERKUNNAM MURI, AMBALAPUZZHA. 2. P.V.RAVEENDRANATH, PAZHAVOOR NEERKUNNAM, VANDANAM P.O.. 3. MANOJ, DO....DO... ADV. SRI.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No. 2351/07 ORDER ON IA No. 3099/07 IN MACA No.2351/07 DISMISSED 12.11.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 2351 OF 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P.(MV) No.275/2002. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 34,250/- with 6% interest. Insurance Company has been directed to pay the amount. It is against that decision the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard counsel for both sides. It is contended by the learned counsel for Insurance Company that though the policy issued is a comprehensive policy no additional premium is paid for the coverage of a pillion rider. Therefore in the light of the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (4) SCC 404], the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify. Admittedly the policy is a comprehensive policy. Conditions are attached to comprehensive policy. Section II(1)(i) of such conditions specifically states that the policy would cover the risk of M.A.C.A.No. 2351 OF 2007 -2- any person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. 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]. The Division Bench of this Court held that since there is specific conditions in the policy which takes in the risk of a person carried in a vehicle other than for hire or reward by terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify. So in the light of the said decision and also from the terms and conditions of the policy it has to be held that the award does not call for any interference. Therefore the M.A.C.A lacks merit and accordingly dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm