IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 1388 of 2008(G) ----------------------- OPMV.420/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- THE UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMED USMAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. MR.SUNEESH, THEKKEDATHU PUTHENPARAMBIL, NEENDOOR , KOTTAYAM 2. PRADEEPKUMAR, PADIPPURACKAL HOUSE MANJOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. No. 1388/2008 ORDER IN I.A. NO. 1660/2008 IN M.A.C.A.NO. 1388/2008 DISMISSED SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE 17/09/2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.1388 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal , Kottayam in O.P.(MV) No. 420 of 2006. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.46,500/- and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount. It is against that decision the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. The contention of the Insurance Company is that the claimant being a pillion rider and as the policy does not cover the pillion rider, its liability to be exonerated. Admittedly, the policy is a B-Policy (i.e. Comprehensive Policy). The conditions of policy i.e Section 2 deals with a situation “that death 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 the Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where death or such injury arises out of and in the the course of the employment of such person by the insured.” The case came up for interpretation M.A.C.A. No.1388 /2008 2 before the Devision Bench of this court in the decision of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hydrose and Others reported in [2008(3) K.H.C.522] wherein, this court held that in such clauses specific coverage was provided for such gratuitous passengers, as per the conditions of policy regarding the coverage of risk due to the death or bodily injury to any person, provided, the person is not carried or hired In the light of this decision, the Tribunal's decision cannot be found fault with. Therefore, this appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE scm