IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 16 of 2009 --------------------------------- OPMV.2956/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- SHAJI.N.M., 34 YEARS S/O.KUMARAN, NARIKKOTTU MEETHA HOUSE, P.O.BALATH, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. SUDHAKARAN.N., R/AT.SUJISHA NIVAS P.O.KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, PARCO TOWER, P.M.TAJ ROAD, KOZHIKODE ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.16 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of November 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in exonerating the insurance company from the liability to indemnify the insured/owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal did so for the reason that a Package Policy did not cover the risk of a passenger in a vehicle. The appellant was admittedly a pillion rider and, therefore, the Tribunal took the view that being a pillion rider the insurance company would not be liable to indemnify the owner of the two wheeler. 2. However, it is fairly conceded by learned counsel for respondent No.2/ insurance company that in view of the clarification issued by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, a package policy will cover the risk of a passenger/pillion rider also. 3. In that view of the matter, the award passed by the Tribunal to the extent it exonerated appellant/respondent No.2 is modified. It is held that respondent No.2 shall be liable to pay the compensation to the appellant. 4. Though learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meagre and inadequate, in our view, considering the injury sustained by him, the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. The appellant had suffered an injury on his patella. He was in the hospital for five days. The disability certificate produced by the appellant indicated his disability as 5%. But the Tribunal had accepted 2% M.A.C.A.No.16 OF 2009 :: 2 :: disability. However, though the appellant was directed to appear before the Tribunal on several occasions to see whether he had been suffering from any kind of disability, the appellant did not choose to do so. This has been clearly observed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. In that view of the matter also, we are not satisfied that any indulgence is warranted. The amount awarded by the Tribunal, in our view, need not be interfered with. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes