IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 141 of 2008() ---------------------- OP(MV).1768/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------- ALEYKUTTY MATHEW, W/O.LATE MATHEW, 52 YEARS, MANIKOMPEL HOUSE, KACHERIKADAVU P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. A.FREDRICK MOUTTAPPA, SOUKUPET STREET, MUTHIYALPET, PONDICHERRY 605003. 2. DR.VIPIN VARKEY, S/O.VARKEY, 22 YEARS, MUKKUZHIKKAL HOUSE, NIRMALAGIRI P.O. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PONDICHERRY BRANCH 1, 62-A, J.N.STREET, PIN 605001. ADV. SRI.JOE KALLIATH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 141 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The appellant, a gratuitous passenger on a two wheeler, ridden by none other than her grandson, met with an accident, sustained injuries and claimed compensation. The rider of the vehicle namely, the appellant's grandson as also the owner were held liable and an amount of Rs. 46,000/- was awarded as compensation, as against the claim of Rs. 50,000/- after finding negligence on the part of the rider. These facts are not disputed. However, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Insurance Company ought to have been made liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal, after referring to the policy in question found that this is only a comprehensive policy; in other words, a policy for damage of the vehicle also but did not cover a gratuitous passenger as in the present case. We have perused the copy of the insurance policy made available to us. On a reading of the policy, we do not find that this covers a MACA 141/2008 2 passenger of the two wheeler other than the rider. Going by the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Shimla, v. Tilak Singh, ((2006) 4 SCC 404), the decision of this Court in Mathew Joseph v. Janaki (2007(1) KLT 747) and the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jaya (2002(1) KLT 596 (SC) we find that the decision of the Tribunal is correct in law and it does not call for any interference in appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-