IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1363 of 2008() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1507/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2: ----------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTARATHIL BUILDING, PALAYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIFF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SIRIL M., S/O.MASILA MONI, THAIKOTTU PUTHEN BUNGLOW, KUNNATHUKAL, KARAKKONAM (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. S. LEON, S/O.SINKARAM, ANI COTTEGE KUNNATHUKAL, KARAKKONAM (PO) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.S.JAMES VINCENT FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO.1363/2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO.1622 OF 2008 IN MACA NO.1363 OF 2008 DISMISSED 05/11/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1363 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV) 1507/02. The claimant, a pillion rider of a scooter sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.22,600/-. The insurance company was directed to pay the amount. It has come in appeal. 2. Learned counsel would contend that since no additional premium is paid for the coverage of a pillion rider and in the light of the dictum laid down in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (2) KLT 884(SC) the insurance company is not bound to indemnify. The Tribunal has found that Ext.B1 policy is a comprehensive policy. This Court is coming across so many comprehensive policies where there is a condition attached to the policy i.e. clause II(1)(i). It is a specific clause where there is a contract whereby the insurance M.A.C.A. 1363 OF 2008 -:2:- company has undertaken to cover the risk of a person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. The said clause came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose & another [2008 (3) KHC 522(DB)]. The Division Bench held that when there is a contract covering the liability the insurance company cannot get out of it and therefore held that it is bound to indemnify. It is true that I have not seen the policy conditions in this case but taking note of the the policy conditions which I come across everyday I hold that the insurance company is bound to indemnify. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. I make it clear that if there is no such condition as referred to by me, the insurance company is given liberty to move an application for reviewing with notice to the other side. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-