IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 MACA.No. 390 of 2007 --------------------------------- OPMV.856/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.II, SEEMA TOWERS, MAVOOR ROAD JUNCTION, KOZHIKODE, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNHIKANARAN, AGED 35 YEARS, MARAKKATTPURATH HOUSE, VIYYUR P.O., KOLLAM, KOYILANDY-673 307. 2. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, ELECTRONATE ENGINEERING COMPANY, VIII/129, OZHATHIL LANE, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. BABU, S/O.RAMAN, KARUVANDI HOUSE, P.O.KOLLAM, KOYILANDY-673 307. ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN FOR R1 SMT.THUSHARA.V FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.390 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of November 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant is the insurer of a vehicle involved in a road traffic accident that occurred on April 16, 2002. Respondent No.1/claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on a two wheeler which was knocked down by the offending vehicle. It was contended by the appellant/insurance company that the claimant being a pillion rider and the policy issued by the appellant/insurance company being a package policy, the owner of the offending vehicle would not be liable to be indemnified. In other words, the contention was the insured not having paid any additional premium to cover the risk of a pillion rider, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. The above contention was repelled by the Tribunal and the appellant was directed to pay the compensation. Hence this appeal. 2. When this appeal is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company fairly concedes that in view of the clarification issued by the Insurance Regulatory Authority, a package policy would cover the risk of the pillion rider also. In that view of the matter, there is no scope for interfering with the impugned award. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes