IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 913 of 2004 -------------------- OPMV.1076/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MULLAPPILLY BUILDING, A.M.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT AND R1: ----------------------------- 1. VARGHESE, S/O. PAILY, VAZHAPILLYKKUDY HOUSE, PANAMKUZHI, KOMBANAD VILLAGE. 2. POULOSE, S/O. PAILY, VAZHAPPILLYKKUDY HOUSE, PARALIKKAD, KURUPPAMPADY. ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2010, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 791 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.Nos.913/2004 & 791/2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010 Judgment Basheer, J: These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since both of them arise from the same award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. While MACA.913/2004 is at the instance of the Insurance Company, the other appeal is by the claimant who suffered certain injuries in the accident. 2. The primary ground of challenge in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is against the direction of the Tribunal to indemnify the owner of the two wheeler and pay the compensation to the claimant. 3. It is contended by the appellant/Insurance Company that the policy issued by the Company is an “Act only” policy and the claimant being a pillion rider, the Company could not have been held liable to indemnify the owner of the two wheeler. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced a copy of the certificate of Insurance which will unambiguously show that no additional premium had been paid to cover the pillion rider. The certificate is taken on record as Ext.X1. Learned counsel for the claimant also concedes that it is only an “Act I : 2 : only” policy and that a pillion rider will not therefore be covered. 5. In that view of the mater, the award passed by the Tribunal to the extent it directs the appellant to indemnify the owner of the vehicle is liable to be set aside. We do so. However it is made clear that the claimant will be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. 6. MACA.913/2004 is disposed of in the above terms. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant in MACA.791/05 submits that the above appeal filed by the claimant is not being pressed. Therefore MACA.791/05 is dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.