IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 MACA.No. 106 of 2010() ----------------------------------- OPMV.1384/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN OP(MV) NO.1384/2002 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS DEPARTMENT, T.C.25/153 (3), GNDHARIAMMANCOIL ROAD, PULIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDINGS, JEWS STREET, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-682 035. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) NO.1384/2002 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, VANCHIMALAYIL HOUSE, KUTTOOR.P.O., THIRUVALLA. 2. ABRAHAM (KUNJAVARACHAN), S/O. GEORGE, MADATHUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, KUTTOOR.P.O., THIRUVALLA. 3. SAJEEVKUMAR, MANAPUZHA, KEEZHUVANMAZHY, PANDANAD. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs MACA.No. 106 of 2010 ORDER ON I.A. NO.147/2010 IN M.A.C.A. NO.106/2010. CLOSED 22/12/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.106 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in OP(MV)No.1384/2002. The point that arises for determination in the appeal is regarding liability of the insurance company. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.75,650/= and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. The contention of the insurance company is to the effect that the vehicle is covered only by an act only policy and additional premium of ` 63/= has been collected for personal accident coverage of two persons in accordance with the endorsement IT 64. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend before me that since additional premium is received, it covers the risk of the pillion rider and so there is nothing : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.106 OF 2010 to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. 4. The law is fairly well settled on the question of act only policy. By virtue of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (2) KLT 884] status of the pillion rider is that of a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy and therefore he is not liable to be indemnified by the insurance company. In the case of package policies, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority issued a clarificatory circular dated 16.11.2009 wherein after analysing the condition it was clarified that the person carried in two wheelers and the persons travelling in private vehicles are covered under the terms and conditions of the standard motor package policy. So if the vehicle is covered by a package policy, then no additional premium is necessary. In the light of Tilak Singh's case in order to have coverage to a pillion rider unless additional premium is paid, insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability. 5. Here is a case where the insurance company has taken a sum of ` 63/= as personal accident coverage for two : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.106 OF 2010 persons and it can also be seen that it is done under endorsements. It is contended that in order to attract the endorsement in the policy, either there must be death or 100% disability for the person. So the contract of insurance envisages a specific situation for the coverage of personal accidents. I am not going deep in to that reason as these conditions are not produced before the Tribunal. Parties are to be given an opportunity to explain or challenge the correctness of the same. 6. So without expressing anything on merit with respect to the same, I send back the case to the Tribunal with a direction to the insurance company to produce the conditions on which they rely for non liability and also permit the other parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and let the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. The claimant has entered appearance before the court, so junction of the owner is absolutely necessary. Therefore the insurance company is directed to take out notice to the owner as well so as to have a full fledged trial and dispose of the matter in accordance with : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.106 OF 2010 law. I make it clear that the question of quantum cannot be re-agitaged and it has reached conclusiveness. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.1.2011. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 5 : M.A.C.A.NO.106 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 11th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T