IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 2582 of 2008() ------------------------------------- OPMV.60/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT:- ------------------------ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI -35 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY:- --------------------------- 1. VISWANADHAN NAIR, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR KAZHUVANIKUNNEL HOUSE, PALA KARA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE. 2. ARUNKUMAR K.V. S/O. VISWANADHAN NAIR, KAZHUVANIKUNNEL HOUSE, PALA KARA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.3077/2008 IN MACA. NO.2582/2008 Dismissed 03.12.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 2582 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(MV) No. 60/2006. The short point that arises for determination is whether a pillion rider travelling in a two wheeler is covered by a policy which is marked as Ext. B1 in this case. The learned counsel would submit that in the light of the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (2) KLT 884] , unless additional premium is paid a pillion rider is not covered and therefore the Insurance Company is not bound to pay the amount. On the other hand, the tribunal has taken a view that as per the conditions of the policy, any person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward is covered under the conditions of the policy. This clause came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008 (3) KHC 522]. The Division Bench held that when there is a specific clause covering the risk of such a person, the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify. Therefore in M.A.C.A.No. 2582/2008 -2- the light of the decision and the conditions of the policy, I do not find any fault with the tribunal in arriving at a decision that the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify. Therefore the M.A.C.A lacks merit and accordingly dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm