IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 1838 of 2006() ----------------------- OP(MV).835/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------ SRI.K.M.GEORGE,S/O.MATHAI, KOONAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MANEED P.O., MANEED. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 --------------------------------- 1. SRI.JOY JOSEPH, CHALAKKATTU HOUSE,MANEED P.O., PIRAVOM. 2. FR. ABRAHAM,S/O. JACOB, AKKAL KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, KANNARA KARA, PEECHI,THRISSUR. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., AMBIKA ARCADE,M.G.ROAD, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No.1838 of 2006 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair .J, This appeal is filed against the order of the M.A.C.T. dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant claiming compensation against the rider, registered owner, and insurer of a motor bike in which the appellant was a pillion rider at the time of the accident. The M.A.C.T. found that the appellant was thrown out of the bike,when it went over a hump while driven by the Son- in-law of the appellant. The M.A.C.T. found that the appellant failed to prove negligence of the rider and rejected the claim. We do agree with the argument of the counsel for the Insurance Company that it has no liability because the pillion rider in a motor bike is not covered by insurance policy by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Tilak Singh 2006 (2) K.L.T. 884.SC The balance dispute only between the appellant and his son-in law ( the rider of the bike). Even though the appellant has a case that the registered owner is liable, we are unable to uphold the same because there is nothing to indicate that the registered owner was permitted to use his bike by the rider, allowing to take appellant as the pillion rider and exposed to risk . Consequently we dismiss the appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------- M.A.C.A 1838 of 2006 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 16th October , 2008