IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 2793 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.1062/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. RAJEEVAN, S/O.SIVADASAN, NATALAKIZHAKKETHIL, VEEDU, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. VINOD, S/O.PUSHPANGATHAN, SHANMUGHA VILASOM, KUDAVATHOOR, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. G.RAJESH, S/O.GOPINATHAN, REKHALAYAM, MANNADY P.O., KADAMPANADU. ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN FOR R3 SRI. K.SHAJ FOR R1 SRI.SAJJU.S FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2793 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in OP(MV)No.1062/1999. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.78,080/= with 9% interest and the insurance company was liable to pay the amount. 2. The contention of the insurance company is to the effect that the claimant was travelling in a private jeep and as the policy does not cover the risk of a passenger in a private jeep, the status of the said passenger is that of a gratuitous passenger as held in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [(2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC) and therefore, extending the dictum in Tilak Singh's case, it has to be exonerated from the liability. 3. On the other hand, the Tribunal found that the vehicle is covered by a comprehensive policy and as per the terms and conditions of the comprehensive policy, the : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2793 OF 2009 insurance company has undertaken to cover the risk in case of death of or injuries arising out of motor vehicles other than for hire or reward. Since there is such a condition attached to the policy, no additional premium is necessary. The said clause came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778). The Division Bench held that since it is a contract which covers the field, necessity to pay additional premium would not arise in such cases and therefore, conditions of the policy cover the risk of the passenger. The same principle has been laid down by another Division Bench in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). 4. So, on the basis of the authoritative pronouncement on this point by the two Division Benches, it has to be held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. I have already held the same in connected appeal, M.A.C.A.No.3079/2008. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.2793 OF 2009 : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.2793 OF 2009