IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 2615 of 2009(D) ------------------------------ OPMV.483/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE OMANA BUILDING, PADM JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 --------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL JAMAL, S/O IBRAHIM AGED 26 YEARS KIZHAKKE MUKKAT HOUSE, P.O.ORKKATTERI, VIA VATAKARA, PIN-673501, ONCHIYAM AMSOM, VELLIKULANGARA DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SAFEER, M.T. S/O. KUNHAMMED, AGED YEARS MANAKKATT THAZHEKUNNI HOUSE, P.O. VAIKKILASSERY VIA VATAKARA VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 101. (R.C. OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE NO. KL-18-B-12) 3. ABDUL NISSAR, M.P. S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 23 YEARS, MARUTHERI PARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.CHEKKONNU WEST, VIA KAKKATTIL, VTAKARA TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN-673507. (RIDER OF MOTORCYCLE KL-18-B-12.) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2615 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara in O.P.(MV)483/06. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.22,394/- and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. The claimant was a pillion rider in a vehicle and the insurance company has challenged the liability on the ground that being a pillion rider the status of him is that of gratuitous passenger and extending the principles in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh) 2006 (2) KLT 884(SC) without the payment of additional premium the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability. Learned Tribunal had exhaustedly considered the point in paragraph 8 of the award and it can be seen the vehicle involved is covered by a package policy and it is also stated therein that “Ext.B1 document would reveal that the M.A.C.A. 2615 OF 2009 -:2:- insurance company has undertaken to indemnify the first respondent for the loss sustained by him due to the injuries sustained to the person travelled in the vehicle in connection with a motor accident provided that person was not carried for hire or reward”. The said clause has come up for consideration before two Division Benches of this court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). Both the Division Benches on consideration of the clause held that it is a contract between the parties by which the insurance company has undertaken to cover the liability and therefore payment of additional premium is not necessary to cover such persons. In the light of these two decisions it has to be held that the Tribunal was not erred in holding the insurance company liable for the amount. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-