IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 1799 of 2009(A) --------------------------- OPMV.1512/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDING,PADMA JUNCTION,KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & IST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUDHEESH KUMAR,S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, MANAKALAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KAITHAKKUZHY,ELAMCHIRA. PO,EDACKODE(VIA),KANYAKUMARI,TAMIL NADU. 2. P.STALIN FRANCIS, S/O.POULOSE,19/64, R.C.STREET,KUZHITHURAI.PO,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU,PIN-629161. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1 SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH FOR R1 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R1 SRI.A.S.SABU FOR R1 SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN FOR R1 SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1799 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.(MV) 1512/03. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident while travelling as a pillion rider and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.71,467/- and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the insurance company in relation to the contention that as no additional premium is collected it is not liable to pay the amount. Now a clarificatory Circular has been issued with respect to the package policies and it has been issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority on 16.11.2009. The said circular quoted clause II (i) as follows. “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 M.A.C.A. 1799 OF 2009 -:2:- 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.” 2. It is reiterated that the above circular makes it clear that the insurance company's liability in respect of occupants carried in a private car and pillion rider carried in a two wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. So the clarificatory order makes it clear that the package policy takes in the risk of a pillion rider. Over and above this, the above said clause had come up for consideration before two Division Benches of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). On considering the entire clause both the Division Benches held that since the conditions of the policy cover the risk of a person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward, by virtue of the conditions of the policy no M.A.C.A. 1799 OF 2009 -:3:- additional premium is necessary and therefore the insurance company is liable. Therefore in the light of these two decisions referred to above and the Circular issued by the competent authority the policy being a package policy, the insurance company cannot get exonerated from the liability with respect to a pillion rider carried in a motor vehicle. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference and hence the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-