IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 451 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.973/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT -------------- THE KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 1ST RESPONDENT --------------- 1. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE MANOJ KUMAR THEKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANCHELPETTY P.O. ONAKKOOR 2. V.K.VASUDEVA ACHARI, SON OF LATE KUTTY ACHARI THEKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANCHELPETTY P.O. ONAKKOOR 3. V.K.AMMINI AMMAL, WIFE OF VASUDEVA ACHARI THEKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANCHELPETTY P.O. ONAKKOOR 4. V.A.GINIL KUMAR, VADAKKEDATHU HOUSE ANCHELPETTY P.O., ONAKKOOR ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS FOR R2&R3 SRI.C.DILIP FOR R4 SRI.MURALI MANOHAR.R FOR R2 & R3 SRI.T.K.KOSHY FOR R1 SMT.V.V.RISANI FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.451 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant, the Kerala State Insurance Department, has preferred this appeal impugning the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The claimants before the Tribunal were the parents and wife of deceased Manoj Kumar, who succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on June 11, 2002. Deceased Manoj Kumar was travelling as a pillion on a two wheeler bearing Reg.No.KL-7X-2438 ridden by respondent No.1 herein and insured with the appellant. 3. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants passed an award in a sum of Rs. 3,48,000/- with interest @ 8% and directed the appellant to pay the same. 4. The only contention raised in the appeal is that the MACA.No.451/2009 2 appellant would not be liable to indemnify the owner of the two wheeler since the policy issued in respect of the vehicle was an 'Act only policy' and therefore the pillion rider would not be covered under the said policy. However, learned counsel for respondent No.1 pointed out that the policy was a comprehensive policy and additional premium was infact paid as could be seen from the copy of the policy certificate itself. 5. Learned Government Pleader after getting instructions in the matter submits that the policy did cover the risk of a pillion rider also since it was a comprehensive policy. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the appellant is only to be repelled. We do so. No other point has been raised before us against the award. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 6. Before we part with the case, it has to be noticed that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 848 days. It is obvious that the appellant has not even bothered to verify the records before filing the appeal. It is seen from the certificate of policy itself that it was a comprehensive policy. At least before filing the appeal, the appellant MACA.No.451/2009 3 ought to have taken care to verify the records. In that view of the matter, we are satisfied that the appellant has to be directed to pay cost to the claimants. We quantify the cost at Rs. 5,000/-. The cost shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.451/2009 4