IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 MFA.No. 1491 of 1998(B) ----------------------------------- OPMV.159/1993 of IST ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3: ----------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE P.B. NO.22, II FLOOR, THENKASI BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., OFFICE OF THE THIRD PARTY CLAIMS CELL, VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, P.B. NO.1835, JOSE JUNCTION ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 16. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN SRI.V.B.JINNAH SRI BOBY MATHEW SMT. C.B.SUMA DEVI RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 : ----------------------F 1. V. SURESH LAL, S/O.VIDYADHARAN, SURESH BHAVAN, NEDUMPAIKULAM, KUNDARA. 2. N. ARUMUGHAN, 101, PILLAYAR COIL STREET, KUDIYIRUPPU, KOUETALLAN P.O., TAMIL NADU. 3. SREEHARILAL, SURESH BHAVAN, THRIPPILAZHIMKOM MURI, NEDUMPAIKULAM, EZHUKONE VILLAGE. R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.1491 of 1998 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the third respondent insurer challenging that part of the award by which the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation awarded in this case. First respondent filed an Original Petition claiming compensation alleging that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 11.11.1991. It was averred that the first respondent was travelling as a pillion rider in a scooter bearing registration No.TDT 8024. It was contended that due to the rash or negligent riding of the scooter it hit a pedestrian. The first respondent was thrown away and sustained injuries. Second respondent filed a counter admitting the accident. It was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the rider. It was also contended that the vehicle was covered with valid policy of insurance. Insurer admitted the existence of a valid policy. It was contended that the claimant/first respondent was a pillion rider and the policy issued in this case does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider. It also found that the first respondent is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.18,200/-. Tribunal also found that the policy issued in this case is only an Act only policy. But the Tribunal took a view that the pillion rider was also covered by the Act only policy and directed the insurer to pay the compensation. Challenging that part of the award the insurer has MFA No.1491/1998 2 filed this appeal. 2. It is trite law that if the policy issued is only an Act only policy a pillion rider travelling in a two wheeler is not covered by that policy, In this case the insurer had adduced oral as well as documentary evidence to prove that the claimant was a pillion rider and vehicle was covered with an Act only policy. So the finding of the Tribunal that the insurer is liable to pay compensation is liable to be set aside. It is open to the claimant/first respondent to recover the compensation from the owner and rider. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. That part of the award by which the Tribunal directed the insurer to pay the compensation is hereby set aside and the appellant is exonerated from the liability to pay compensation. It is made that first respondent can recover the compensation awarded from the owner and rider of the vehicle. I.A.No.6097/1998 in M.F.A.No.1491/1998 will stand dismissed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks MFA No.1491/1998 3 K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. M.F.A.No.1491 of 1998 JUDGMENT 18th January, 2008.