IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 1605 of 2010() ----------------------- ( OPMV. 894/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR) .................... APPELLANT: ----------------- RAJAPPAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 39, THONDUNGAL HOUSE, OLANAD, VARAPPUZHA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHIJU VARGHEESE RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. PRADEESH, S/O.PEETHAMBARAN, MADASSERY HOUSE CHERANELLOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM 682034. 2. SANU T.S, A/O.T.R.SASI, "NISARI", KORALAKODATHU PARAMBU ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, AMBIKA ARCADE, MG ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680554. R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1605 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in OP(MV)No.894/2003. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.43,000/=, but exonerated the insurance company from the liability on the ground that additional premium is not paid for the coverage of pillion rider. It is challenging the same, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. A perusal of the award makes it very clear that the two wheeler involved in the accident was covered by a package policy. There was a confusion regarding the coverage of pillion rider, but by virtue of two decisions of this Court and later by a clarificatory circular issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority dated 16.11.2009, it has been cleared. As per the clarificatory circular, after quoting the conditions of policy, : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1605 OF 2010 it was stated that the persons carried in a two wheeler and passengers carried in a private vehicle are covered by a standard motor package policy. Similarly in the decisions reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813) after analysing the conditions, the Division Benches held that terms and conditions of the policy cover the risk of pillion rider and no additional premium is necessary. 3.Therefore in the light of the authoritative pronouncements, the insurance company is liable to pay but it has to be made clear that from the date 16.7.2008 to 17.8.2010 the claimant will not be entitled to claim any interest for the reason that there was a delay. 4. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company from the liability is set aside and the insurance company is made liable. The insurance company is not liable to pay interest for the period from 16.7.2008 to 17.8.2010. It is also made clear that, if the cost ordered in the delay condonation petition is : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1605 OF 2010 not paid as ordered on or before 23.12.2010, the appeal will stand dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.1605 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 11th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T