IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 2729 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.1247/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- P.C.PRATHEESH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SASI, POYAPPALLY HOUSE, 15/192, MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI-682 507. BY ADVS. MR.R.SUDHISH, SMT.M.MANJU. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. A.A.JOHN JUDE, S/O.A.J.ANTONY, ATHIPOZHI HOUSE, MOOLAMKUZHI, COCHIN-2. 2. CARLTON ANTONY OLIVERO, S/O.CHARLES OLIVERO, PULICKAL HOUSE, NEAR SAUDI SCHOOL, SAUDI, COCHIN-682 507. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, BY ITS MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, VALLAMATTOM ESTATE, RAVIPURAM, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-15. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2729 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in OP(MV)No.1247/2002. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.45,366/=. The insurance company was exonerated from the liability on the ground that the policy does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant had made available before me for perusal two policies. One relates to the period from 8.12.2000 to mid night on 7.12.2001 and then from 13.12.2001 to 12.12.2002. The policy is a B policy which means a package policy. The accident had taken place on 14.10.2001. At the time of issuance of the first policy, registration number of the vehicle had not been obtained and therefore, engine number is given as 135688. This 135688 engine is subsequently registered as KL 7 AB 7403. So when these two documents are read together it : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2729 OF 2009 can be seen that the vehicle on the date of the accident is covered by a package policy. The tribunal negatived the contention on the ground that as no additional premium is paid, it will not cover the liability. In the light of the clarificatory circular dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, persons travelling in a private car and persons carried in a two wheeler are covered by the terms and conditions of the standard motor package policy. The terms and conditions of the package policy came up for consideration before the two Division Benches of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In both these decisions, this Court held that the terms and conditions of the policy will cover the risk of the person and therefore there is no necessity to pay any additional premium. So, in the light of the clarificatory circular coupled with the decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, the insurance company cannot get exonerated from the liability. Therefore the award passed by the tribunal exonerating the : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.2729 OF 2009 insurance company from the liability is set aside and it is made liable. 3. In the result, the MACA is allowed and exoneration of the insurance company from the liability is set aside and it is made liable. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount awarded by the tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.2729 OF 2009