IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 580 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.2210/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER, PARK HOUSE, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 --------------------------------------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNJU EZHUTHACHAN ATTUPURATH HOUSE, PERUMBULLASSERY, CHEVOOR TRICHUR. 2. K.K.RAJEEV KUMAR S/O.KANNANVEETIL KOCHUNNI, P.O.POOTHURAKKAL CHEVOOR, TRISSUR. 3. SARADHA, W/O.KANNAN VEETTIL KOCHUNNI -DO- ADVS. SRI.RAJIT FOR R2-3 SRI.RANJIT BABU FOR R2-3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. 580/2008 ORDER ON I.A. 709/2008 IN M.A.C.A.NO. 580/2008 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE 22.01.2008 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 580 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV) No.2210/01. The claimant, a pillion rider in a motorcycle, sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 14,000/-. It is against that decision, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. The contention of the Insurance Company is that the policy issued is an Act only Policy and in spite of such a contention the tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount. I had perused the written statement filed by the Insurance Company. Para 10 of the written statement only states that the existence of a valid policy is admitted and it has reserved the right to file an additional written statement. I had also perused the policy and it is for the period from 24.11.2000 to 23.11.2001 and it is a comprehensive policy. At the outset I would like to say that there is no pleading regarding the exoneration of the liability and therefore the court cannot consider it all. I cannot find fault with the tribunal M.A.C.A. 580/2008 -2- for not considering the same. Even otherwise the policy is of the period from 2000 to 2001 and in such B policies, the condition is attached under Section II(1)(i), where under the contract the Insurance Company has undertaken to cover the risk of a person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. The said clause came up for consideration before a Division bench of this Court reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008 (3) KHC 522] . The Division Bench held that the terms and conditions of the contract covered the risk of pillion riders. So on the basis that there is no pleading and on the factual point that being a comprehensive policy it may contain the condition the plea of Insurance Company cannot be entertained. I decline to entertain this appeal. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm