IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 1530 of 2008(C) ----------------------- OPMV.212/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): /3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P.CELL, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANIRUDHAN @ ANILKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, KAMBIVELIKKAKATHU HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM. 2. BALAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, THENNATTIL, VADAKKEKARA. 3. M.J.AMBROSE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, MOONJIPPILLY HOUSE, NEAR MOSQUE (THAIYEZHATH), NAYARAMBALAM. ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED FOR R1 SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN FOR R2 & 3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1530 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P.(MV)212/03. The claimant, a pillion rider sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.63,200/- and made the insurance company liable to pay the amount. Aggrieved by that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the insurance company as well as the counsel for R1 and R2. Learned counsel for the insurance company very strongly contends before me that the status of the person riding as a pillion rider is that of a gratuitous passenger and unless an additional premium is paid to cover that liability the insurance company will not be liable to pay the amount in M.A.C.A. 1530 OF 2008 -:2:- the light of the principles laid down in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh)2006 (2) KLT 884(SC). On the other hand counsel for R1 and R2 would submit that it is a comprehensive policy and therefore the conditions of the policy cover the risk of pillion rider and therefore the insurance company is liable to pay the amount. We have come across conditions of comprehensive or package policies in very many cases which contain a clause II(i) to the effect that in case of death or bodily injury of a person carried on a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward, is undertaken to be covered by the terms and conditions of the policy. We also find a clause after 2001 onwards “except the liability under the M.V.Act”. Both these clauses have come up for interpretation before two Division Benches of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In both these decisions the Court considered and held that when there is a condition in the M.A.C.A. 1530 OF 2008 -:3:- policy which undertakes the risk of a person carried in a motor vehicle by virtue of the terms and conditions of the contract the insurance company is liable to pay and in such cases additional premium is not to be collected for the purpose of coverage of a passenger. So in the light of the two authoritative pronouncements of this Court since the policy concerned is a comprehensive or a package policy as it contains the conditions as usual, it has to be held that the insurance company is liable to be affixed with the liability to pay the compensation. Therefore on different reasons I sustain the finding of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-