IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 1947 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.1263/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): ------------------------ LINTO P.L., S/O LONAKUTTY, PULLOKKARAN HOUSE, MURIYAD DESOM/VILLAGE AND P.O., MUKUNDAPURM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.V.BABY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV): --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE RAPPAI, KALLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOKKIRIPPALAM, ARATTUPUZHA P.O., 2. JEMSON, S/O JONY, CHIRAMMAL HOUSE, PUTHANTHODE, PARATHUSSERY VILLAGE. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ALENGADAN BUILDINGS,IRINJALAKUDA. R3 BY ADV. SMT. R. REMA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.1947 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, in OP(MV)No.1263/2002. The claimant was riding in a motor bike bearing registration No.KL8/Q 7730 as pillion rider. He sustained fracture of both bones of the arm with protrusion of ulna. The tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.43,900/= and exonerated the insurance company from the liability on the ground that the policy does not cover the risk of the pillion rider. Challenging the quantum as well as the liability, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant as well as the insurance company. The learned counsel for the insurance company would submit before me that she has to get instructions from the insurance company. So far as this case is concerned, a policy copy is made available before me. I had meticulously scrutinized the policy. Registration number of the vehicle, period of validity of the policy and also : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.1947 OF 2008 nature of the policy etc would indicate that it is a comprehensive policy. Therefore I do not feel that there is any necessity for further instruction in the matter. 3. So far as the liability of the insurance company is concerned, the tribunal has approached the matter in the perspective that as no additional premium is paid for the coverage of the pillion rider, the insurance company cannot be held liable. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority by virtue of its clarificatory circular dated 16.11.2009 considered the terms and conditions of the policy and made it clear that passengers travelling in a private car and persons carried in two wheelers are covered by the terms and conditions of the standard motor package policy. The conditions of the policy came up for consideration before the two Division Benches of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose ( 2008 (3) KLT 778) and in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In both these decisions, this Court held that terms of comprehensive policy or package policy will cover the risk of the pillion rider. : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.1947 OF 2008 4. Therefore in the light of the clarificatory circular coupled with the decisions of this Court, it has to be held that the policy will cover the risk of the pillion rider and therefore exoneration of liability of the insurance company is not in accordance with law and therefore it is set aside and it is made liable. 5. The next question is regarding the quantum. The claimant a young man had sustained fracture of both bones of the hand with protrusion of the ulna. He had spent a large sum as medical expense which comes to Rs.21,500/=. So really 50% of the compensation represents the medical expenses incurred in the case. It is true that no disability certificate is issued. But compound fracture of the hand with protrusion of the ulna certainly will cause at least some temporary disability and loss of amenities and all the more for a man aged 21 years whose activity will be curtailed on account of the same. Taking note of the situation, I am inclined to grant Rs.5,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. On all other heads, the tribunal has awarded proper compensation and it does not : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.1947 OF 2008 call for any interference. 6. Therefore the appeal is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.5,000/= with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the award exonerating the insurance company from the liability is set aside and the insurance company is directed to make payment of the entire amount awarded by the tribunal as well within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : M.A.C.A.No.1947 OF 2008