IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 159 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.947/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP.BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD ADV.B.SAJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER 2 & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. MERCY GEORGE, W/O.THE LATE M.J.GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, MAMPILLY HOUSE, H.NO.40/186, CHATHANGATTU ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O., KOCHI- 68 025. 2. MATHEWS KUNJUMON, S/O.VARGHESE, MALAMEL HOUSE, BMC P.O., KAKKANAD. 3. SIJO GEORGE, MAMPILLIL HOUSE, H.32/1105, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH FOR R.1 SRI.LITTO VARGHESE PALATHINKAL SRI.M.J.THARIAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------- M.A.C.A No.159 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Barkath Ali,J. In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the 3rd respondent in O.P (MV) No.947 of 2001 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated January 19, 2006 awarding a compensation of Rs.8,13,000/- with a cost of Rs.8,000/- and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the loss caused to the claimants on account of the deceased Jomon George Mampally in a motor accident. 2. The facts in brief are these: Petitioners 1 and 2 in the claim petition are the father and mother of the deceased Jomon and second respondent is the brother of the deceased. On October 30, 2000 at about 2.40 p.m. the deceased Jomon was travelling in a Maruti car bearing Reg. No.KL-7/L-438 driven by the 2nd respondent along M.A.C.A No.159 of 2007 2 Alappuzha-Ernakulam National Highway. When the vehicle reached near Thuravoor due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, the vehicle suddenly skidded and hit on the divider of the road and thereafter it hit on the back side of a tanker lorry and overturned. The deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment in the K.V.M. Hospital, Cherthala. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by 2nd respondent, according to the claimant. First respondent as the owner and 3rd respondent as the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants who are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. The claimants have claimed a compensation of Rs.25 lakhs. 3. First respondent, the owner of the offending car filed a written statement admitting the accident. Second respondent remained absent and was set ex parte by the Tribunal. Third respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the policy but M.A.C.A No.159 of 2007 3 denying the liability. 4. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the claimants. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the contesting 3rd respondent Insurance Company. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,13,000/-. The Insurance Company has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent is not challenged in this appeal. The Insurance Company mainly challenged the award on the ground that the deceased was a passenger in a private car and that the policy issued does not cover the risk of the deceased. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the policy issued by the 3rd respondent Insurance Company in respect of the offending car covers the risk of the passengers in the car. M.A.C.A No.159 of 2007 4 6. The appeal came up for hearing today. Sri.B.Sajeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly conceded that the policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle is a package policy which covers the risk of the passengers in the private car. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal and the same has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE ma M.A.C.A No.159 of 2007 5 M.A.C.A No.159 of 2007 6