IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1214 of 2007(A) ----------------------- OP(MV).1049/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- SANTHOSH, S/O KUNJUKUTTAN, AGED 27 YEARS, KARIMPANAACHALIL HOUSE, PANNOOR KARA, KARIMANOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. MR. T.V.GEORGE MS. LINDA GEORGE MR. BALACHANDRA KAIMAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. P.T.SANTHOSH, PAREKKAVIL HOUSE, PANNOOR P.O., KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE. 2. MANOJ KUMAR K.M., SANTHALAYAM HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, JYOTHI SUPER BAZAR, THODUPUZHA. ADV. MR. GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1214 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) 1049 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal , Thodupuzha. He was travelling as a pillion rider in motor cycle KL.11C/7822 from Vannappuram to Kilimanoor on 21.11.2002 at about 9.15 a.m.. The motor cycle met with an accident and appellant sustained injuries. Contending that the accident was caused due to the negligence of first respondent, the rider and second respondent, the owner and third respondent the insurer are liable, appellant claimed a total compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte. Third respondent insurance company though admitted the insurance coverage, contended that it is only an Act policy and the appellant being a pillion rider, the insurance company is not liable to reimburse the insured. 3. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 and B2 found that the MACA.1214/2007 2 motor cycle is insured with third respondent under Ext.B1 policy and it is only an Act policy. Based on the evidence of DW1 and Ext.B2 it was found that no premium over and above the premium payable for an Act policy was paid and therefore the insurance company is not liable to reimburse the insured for the damages caused to the appellant pillion rider. It was found that appellant sustained a lacerated wound over the upper right lip, a cut injury over the vestibule of the upper lip and laceration over the bridge of the nose and lacerated wound over the labial sulcus of the lower lip, based on Ext.A6 treatment certificate. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for payment of pain and suffering, Rs.10,382 for treatment expenses, Rs.3,000/- for loss of earning, Rs.1500/- for extra nourishment charges, Rs.1000/- for bye-stander's expenses and Rs.4000/- for discomforts, inconveniences and loss of amenities. Appeal is filed challenging the award contending that the compensation awarded is unreasonable and in any case award should have been passed against the third respondent insurance company. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal , I find no MACA.1214/2007 3 reason to interfere. Being an Act policy and as no premium other than the one payable for an Act policy was paid, as proved by Exts.B1 and B2, the Tribunal rightly held that insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, for the injuries sustained by a pillion rider. I find no reason to interfere with that finding. 5. Considering the nature of the injuries, the period of treatment and treatment expenses, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable compensation. I find no reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation also. Appeal is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb