IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1963 of 2008 ----------------------- OPMV.2988/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ V.D.RAPHY, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSY, VALLECHIRAKKARAN HOUSE, CHERPU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. C.P.VINOD KUMAR, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, CHEMPARA HOUSE, P.O.CHERPU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.KUNJUKUTTAN, NANATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHATHAKUDAM, VALLACHIRA VILLAGE, TRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., P.B.NO.70, MALIAKKAL BUILDINGS, MAIN ROAD, IRINJALAKKUDA, TRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1963 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV) No.2988/2002. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident. The tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 43,200/- and exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability and directed the first respondent to deposit the amount. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. As per my direction the counsel took notice for the Insurance Company. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Insurance Company and also perused the policy issued with respect to the vehicle involved in the accident. The Insurance Company did raise a contention that the policy is only an Act only policy and therefore held that as no additional premium is collected to cover a pillion rider, it is not liable to indemnify the owner. It appears that the tribunal has accepted the contention in toto. But a perusal of the policy would reveal that it is a B policy or comprehensive policy. This comprehensive policy admittedly has M.A.C.A. 1963/2008 -2- not taken in any premium to cover the pillion rider but there are comprehensive policies with conditions which undertakes to cover the risk of a person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward by terms and conditions of the policy. A similar situation came 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 after considering the conditions of the policy held that the terms and conditions of the policy covers the risk of a person and so there is no necessity for an additional premium and therefore the Insurance Company is bound to pay. All depends upon the terms and conditions of the policy and the restrictive conditions if any that also has to be looked into before reaching a final decision. Unfortunately the tribunal in this case has described the policy as an Act only policy and had jumped to the conclusion in the light of the decision reported in in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (2) KLT 884]. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration so far as liability is concerned. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal with a direction to the M.A.C.A. 1963/2008 -3- Insurance Company to produce copy of policy with policy conditions and adduce evidence in support of its contentions. Needless to say that the respondents are also permitted to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. Since the owner is a necessary party for determination of the case, I direct the appellant herein to take out fresh notice to the owner and driver after he enters appearance before the tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 22.1.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm