IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 922 of 2010(E) ---------------------------- OPMV.340/2003 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- MURUKA DAS K.G., S/O. GOPALAN ACHARI, AGED 30 YEARS, KOCHUKARIPAL HOUSE, THRIPPUNITHURA KARA, NADAMA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (PETITIONER IN MACT) BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------- 1. VENUGOPALA PAI, SARANYA NIVAS, VALIYATHARA, POVANKULANGARA, PUTHIYAKAVU, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. GURUMOORTHI, S/O. ANANTHAPADMANABHAN, ARUN NIVAS, NEAR COCHIN ARYA VAIDYASALA, EROOR NORTH DESOM, NADAMA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., LAYAM ROAD, THRIPPUNITHURA. (RESPONDENTS IN MACT) ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) FOR R-3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 922 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)340/03. The claimant, a pillion rider to a two wheeler, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.26,947/- and exonerated the insurance company from the liability. Respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petitions were made liable to pay the amount. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement as well challenging the exoneration of the insurance company from the liability. 2. Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. A perusal of the award and the documents produced here would reveal that the injury was sustained on 17.1.03 and he was discharged on 20.1.03 with calcanium fracture. The Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs.5,000/- for actual loss of earnings, M.A.C.A. 922 OF 2010 -:2:- Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.3,400/- towards medical expenses. There is no disability certificate produced. I find the Tribunal has has been extremely reasonable in awarding the compensation. Therefore the quantum does not call for any interference. 3. The next question is regarding the exoneration of the liability. The learned counsel for the appellant had made available before me a copy of the policy which would show that it is a package policy. The learned Tribunal disallowed the claim on the ground that a pillion rider in a two wheeler is not a third party and therefore is only a gratuitous passenger and as no additional premium is paid he is not covered in the light of the decision reported in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh) 2006 (2) KLT 884(SC). But here the position is different for the reason that it is a package policy. By virtue of the clarificatory circular dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority the persons carried in a private car and persons carried in a two wheeler are covered under the terms and conditions of M.A.C.A. 922 OF 2010 -:3:- Standard Motor Package Policy. Similarly, two Division Benches of this Court in the decisions reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813) has laid down that the terms and conditions of the policy cover the risk of a pillion rider. Therefore by virtue of the clarificatory Circular as well as by virtue of the decisions referred to above it has to be held that the insurance company is made liable and I do so. Therefore exoneration of the insurance company from the liability is set aside and it is made liable. In the result the MACA is partly allowed confirming the compensation awarded but modifying the award holding that the insurance company is made liable to pay the amount awarded. The insurance company shall deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-