IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 2887 of 2008() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1907/2002 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .......................................................................................................................................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- SREEJA KUMARI, MAJADILYIL KIZHAKKETHIL, KAMPALADI, PORUVAZHI. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, MANJADIYIL KIZHAKKETHIL KAMPALADI, PORUVAZHI. 2. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI. JOE KALLIATH FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. NO. 2887 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam in O.P.(M.V) No.1907 of 2002. The claimant and the 1st respondent are the wife and husband they were travelling in a two wheeler. The two wheeler met with an accident and the wife sustained injuries. He has applied for compensation. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.22,000/- and directed the husband to pay the amount and exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability as it is only an act only policy. It against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard both sides. The only point to be considered is whether the exoneration of the liability of the Insurance Company is proper or not. Admittedly the claimant was a pillion rider in two wheeler. The vehicle was only covered by an act only policy. The Apex court in the decision reported in 'Tilak Singh' case had made it clear that the status of a person travelling in a two wheeler as a pillion rider is that of a gratuitous passenger and the policy would not cover the risk of such a person for the reason that he/she is not a third party. As there is no wider premium collected to cover the M.A.C.A. NO. 2887 OF 2008 2 risk to a pillion rider the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability and the question of statutory liability also does not arise for the reason that a pillion rider is not a third party. Therefore, I do not find any mistake committed by the Court below in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability and therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. pm M.A.C.A. NO. 2887 OF 2008 3 M.A.C.A. NO. 2887 OF 2008 4