IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 2347 of 2008(E) --------------------------------- OPMV.1866/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT : --------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOTTAYAM, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT : ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KUNJUMOITHU @ BABU, MUSLIM VEETIL, KONDOOR KARA.P.O, KARAKKAD BHAGOM, VADANAMKURISY VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. KARUPPA SWAMY @ RAJESH, S/O., THANKAPANDIAN, C/O. OUSPEH, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KURICHY MISSION PALLY BHAGOM, THURUTHY.P.O, CHANGANASSERY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 2347 of 2008(E) ORDER ON I.A.NO.2798 OF 2008 IN M.A.C.A.NO.2347 OF 2008 DISMISSED 31.10.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 2347 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV) No. 1866/2004. The claimant a pillion rider in a motorcycle sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a Compensation of Rs. 36,500/- with 7% interest. The Insurance Company challenged the award on the ground that being a pillion rider and as no additional premium is paid, he is not covered and therefore in the light of the dictum laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (4) SCC 404] , the Insurance Company is not bound to indemnify. The Tribunal has considered the point in para 12 of the award that the policy issued is a package policy with conditions and it is seen from the policy conditions in all cases relating to package policy as well as comprehensive policy. Section II(1)(i) states that the policy would cover the risk of any person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. This clause came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in New India M.A.C.A.No. 2347 OF 2008 -2- Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008 (3) KHC 522]. The Division Bench of this Court held that since there is specific conditions in the policy which takes in the risk of a person carried in a vehicle other than for hire or reward by terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify. So in the light of the said decision and also the terms and conditions one cannot find fault with the Tribunal for arriving at such a decision regarding the liability of the Insurance Company. Therefore the M.A.C.A lacks merit and accordingly dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm