IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 1798 of 2009(A) ------------------------ OPMV.1037/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): SUPPL.6TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP.BY THE MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE,M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS1 TO 3 & SUPPL. RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 RESPECTIVELY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANANTHAMANGALATH FAIZAL,AGED ABOUT 26 YRS,S/O.SHOUKATH,ANANTHAMANGALATH HOUSE, KALIKAVU.P.O,NILAMBUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KAIPULLY YOUSUF,S/O.MAMMAD,KERALA ESTATE KARAVARAKUNDU, KUNNATH. 3. SREEJITH,S/O.KRISHNAN,KALAYARKANDOM THOTTAM,KVARADY.P.O,PALAKKAD. 4. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE,ARAFA BUILDING,COURT ROAD, P.O.MANJERI. 5. POOTHANAKODAN ANWAR,S/O.ABOO HAJI, POOTHANANKODAN HOUSE,P.O.EDAPPETTA, MELATTUR. 6. A.M.ABDU JALEEL,S/O.MOHAMMAD, ANANTHAMANGALATH HOUSE,MAMPAD COLLEGE.P.O, MAMPAD. ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1798 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P.(MV)1037/02. The claimant in this case was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor bike bearing Reg.No.KL-10J/2843. When it reached the place of accident another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL- 9/8868 driven by R1 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the motorcycle resulting in injuries to the pillion rider. The Tribunal on a consideration of the materials found that the accident took place on account of the negligence of both the riders, namely R1 and R4 and directed to apportion the liability equally and further directed the insurance company to pay the amount in equal proportions. The New India Assurance Company which is the appellant before me is the insurer of the motorcycle in which the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider. It is contended that though the M.A.C.A. 1798 OF 2009 -:2:- policy issued is a package policy it does not cover the risk as no additional premium is paid. But the learned Tribunal did not accept that contention but directed the insurance company to pay the amount. It is against that decision the insurance company, namely the New India Assurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for all. In a comprehensive policy/ package policy there is a condition shown as clause II (i) which reads as follows. “death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the insured vehicle(provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured.” M.A.C.A. 1798 OF 2009 -:3:- 3. This clause has came up for consideration before two Division Benches of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). On considering the entire clause both the Division Benches held that since the conditions of the policy cover the risk of a person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward by virtue of the conditions of the policy no additional premium is necessary and therefore the insurance company is liable. Now the Insurance Regulatory Authority had also issued a circular on 16.11.2009 after considering the terms and conditions of the policy. It is stated that the above circular makes it clear that the insurance company's liability in respect of occupants carried in a private car and pillion rider carried in a two wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. Therefore in the light of these two decisions referred to above and the Circular issued by the competent authority the policy being a comprehensive/package policy, the insurance M.A.C.A. 1798 OF 2009 -:4:- company cannot get exonerated from the liability with respect to a pillion rider carried in a motor vehicle. Therefore the contention of the New India Assurance Company cannot be accepted and therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-