IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 2009 of 2007(F) --------------------------------- MVOP.22/2002 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ---------------------------------- V.J.ANTONY, S/O.JOHNY, VADASSERY HOUSE, VETTILAPPARA ESTATE, DIVISION 'A' COTTAGE, AYYANMPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------- 1. ANTONY, S/O.LONAPPAN, NARAKKADAN HOUSE, THAZHUR DESOM, KODASSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT (DRIVER). 2. VIJAYAN.M.K., S/0.KUNJAYYAPPEN, MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, CHEMBUCHIRA P.O., KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT (OWNER). 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THRISSUR BRANCH OFFICE, AMBIKA ARCADE, M.G.ROAD, P.B.NO. 89, THRISSUR-1/. ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA FOR R2 SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R2 SRI.M.R.ANISON FOR R2 SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI FOR R2 SRI.P.N.APPUKUTTAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2009 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)22/02. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident while he was travelling as a pillion rider. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.45,027/- and directed respondents 1 and 2 to pay the amount. Insurance company was exonerated from the liability on the ground that the policy will not cover the risk of a pillion rider. It is against that the appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the quantum as well as the liability of the insurance company. 2. The owner has also appeared before this Court though he remained exparte before the Tribunal. Learned counsel would contend that he has already sold the vehicle and wants to raise that contention before the Tribunal. The counsel appearing for both sides had shown me a copy of the policy which shows that it is a comprehensive policy. It is M.A.C.A. NO. 2009 OF 2007 -:2:- true that comprehensive policy by itself does not mean that it cover the risk of a pillion rider. But when there are conditions attached to a comprehensive policy which covers the risk of a person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward, the insurance company, under the terms of the contract, is bound to indemnify such persons. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not considered that matter and it has considered as if it is only an Act only policy. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration. Since the matter has to go back the owner can also be permitted to file written statement and adduce evidence and in case of transfer, impleadment of all necessary parties can also be made. 3. So far as the quantum is concerned if the claimant adduce evidence that can also be reconsidered by the Tribunal and appropriate orders be passed. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for considering the entire materials afresh including the quantum, liability, ownership etc. and for M.A.C.A. NO. 2009 OF 2007 -:3:- that purpose all the parties are permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Owner of the vehicle is also permitted to file written statement and then the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 4.1.09. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-