IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 491 of 2010() --------------------------------- OPMV.51/1999 of ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL TOWERS, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): 1ST & 2ND RESPONDENT & PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. ANIYAN KUNJU @ KOCHUPODI, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, CHIRAYIL VEEDU, CHIRAKKADAVAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 2. PUSHPANGADAN.B., PUSHPA BHAVAN, KAPPIL MEKKU, KRISHNAPURAM. 3. BABU, S/O.GOPALAN, THUNDIL VEEDU, NEAR WARE HOUSE, KAYAMKULAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.661/2010 IN MACA.NO.491/2010 CLOSED 15/06/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.491 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara in OP(MV)No.51/1999. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.51,350/=. The insurance company had raised a contention that being an Act only policy, the company is not liable to indemnify the owner. Admittedly, the policy is an Act only policy. The learned Tribunal considered the general condition of the policy “except so far as necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, the company shall not be liable in respect of death or bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the motor vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which any claim arises). Difference between the Act only policy and the package policy is that the word any person used in the Act only policy does not relate to a pillion rider and the Hon'ble Supreme : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.491 OF 2010 Court has made it clear in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh ( 2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC) that the said person is only a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy and therefore, he is not liable to be covered under the Act. But so far as the package policy is concerned, the wording is including occupants carried in the vehicle. Suppose a person is carried in a vehicle, by virtue of the terms and conditions of the package policy which incorporates a clause of this nature, then the insurance company cannot escape from the liability and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority by virture of a clarificatory circular dated 16.11.2009 had made it very clear. The terms and conditions of the standard motor package policy had been considered by two Divisions Benches of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778 ) and in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813) and it has been held that the terms and conditions of those policies cover the risk of a pillion rider. Now the finding of the learned Tribunal that any person would take in a pillion rider is not correct and : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.491 OF 2010 an Act only policy never covers the risk of a pillion rider. Therefore the said finding is liable to be vacated and the insurance company is to be exonerated from the liability. 2. Therefore the appeal is allowed and the insurance company is exonerated from the liability and the claimant is given liberty to proceed against other respondents jointly and severally for the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.491 OF 2010