IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1301 of 2008 --------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.70/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/ 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP.BY ITS MANAGER, 3RD PARTY WING, OAMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-36. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.S.BINU RAJ, MANNAKKATU HOUSE, ALANADU P.O, BHARANANGANAM, KOTTAYAM. 2. M.J.JOSE, MADAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ALANADU P.O, BHARANANGANAM, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABY THOMAS, ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR, ADV. SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B, ADV. SRI.HARIDAS, ADV. SRI.J.PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. NO. 1301/2008-F: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 1544/2008 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 1301/2008-F DISMISSED 03/12/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1301 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(MV) No.70/2004. The claimant, a pillion rider in a scooter, sustained injuries in a road accident. The tribunal found the scooterist as negligent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 77,300/- with 7.5% interest. 2. The contention of the Insurance Company is that being a pillion rider and as no additional premium is collected, in the light of the dictum laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (2) KLT 884], the claimant is not liable to be compensated by the Insurance Company. The tribunal has dealt with the same in para 10 of the award. The conditions are extracted as follows: “Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of - Death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the insured vehicle M.A.C.A.NO. 1301/2008 -2- (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured. - Damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured.” The very same clause came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008 (3) KHC 522] . The Division Bench held that when there is a specific condition incorporated in the policy undertaking coverage of the risk of a person carried in a vehicle other than for hire or reward, the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify. Therefore in the light of the decision as well as on the terms and conditions of the policy, I hold that the Insurance Company is bound to pay the amount. The award passed by the tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. Therefore the M.A.C.A lacks merit and accordingly it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm