IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 418 of 2008(B) ----------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.464/2000 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR. .................... APPELLANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE O.P(MV): ----------------------------------------------------------------------- THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. DUMBIVLI (E), BOMBAY, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT IN OP(MV): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SELVARAJ, S/O.PECHIMUTHU, ISFIELD ESTATE SECOND DIVISION, KAZHUTHURITTY, PIN-689695. 2. MONY.K., AMBANADU ESTATE, ARANDAL DIVISION, KALTHURITTY, ARIYANKAVU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, PIN-689695. 3. M. AYYAPPAN, S/O.MONY, ARANDAL DIVISION, KALTHURITTY, PIN-689695, ARIYANKAVU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN, ADV. SMT.MINI.S.DAS. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.418 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 21st day of October 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur in O.P.(MV)No.464 of 2000. The insurance company is the appellant. The Tribunal has awarded compensation and directed the insurance company to pay the amount and get it recovered from the first respondent in the claim petition. It is against that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. The contention of the insurance company is that the vehicle involved is a private jeep and there is no policy covering the risk of the passengers travelling in a private jeep. RW1 has been examined and Ext.B1 has been produced. A copy of the policy is made available before me for perusal. It would show that the policy had been taken to the effect that it is a private vehicle and it is for a period from 18.5.1999 to 9.5.2000. The top portion of the policy also shows that it is only an Act only policy. When it is only an Act only policy it only covers the risk of the 3rd party. So far as a passenger in a private vehicle is concerned, his status is that of a gratuitous MACA 418/2008 -:2:- passenger not covered by the policy as has been held in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Asha Rani(2003(1) KLT 165(SC) and also in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Tilak Singh(2006(2) KLT 884(SC). Or in other words, an Act only policy does not cover the risk of a passenger in a private vehicle and that the passenger in a private vehicle is not a 3rd party as well and therefore there cannot be any liability for the insurance company to pay the amount. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the amount and recover it from the first respondent cannot be sustained. The insurance company is totally exonerated from the liability and the claimant is given a direction to realise the compensation from respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Appeal is disposed of as accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-