IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 2835 of 2008() ------------------------------- OPMV.790/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENT 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY -------------------------- 1. THOMAS P.A., S/O.AUGUSTINE EDATHUMKUNNEL HOUSE, VELLILAPPILLY RAMAPURAM P.O. 2. P.A.AUGUSTHY, PORUNNAKKOTTU HOUSE RAMAPURAM. 3. BINU JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH MUTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALAMPRA P.O. KOOVAPPALLY VILLAGE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO. 3293/2008 IN MACA. NO.2835/2008 DISMISSED 07/12/2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No. 2835 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Pala in OP(MV)No.790/2006. The claimant while he was traveling as a pillion rider in a motor bike, sustained injuries in a road accident. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.75,840/= with 9% interest and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. Challenging the liability that is cast upon the insurance company and the rate of interest, this appeal is preferred. 2. Admittedly the vehicle is covered by a package policy as is seen from para-8 of the award. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority had issued a circular dated 16.11.2009 dealing with package policy to private car and pillion rider. The above circular makes it clear that the insured’s liability in respect of occupants carried in a private car and pillion rider carried in a two wheeler is covered under the standard motor package policy. 3. Therefore in the light of the above circular, it has to : 2 : M.A.C.A.No. 2835 OF 2008 be stated that the package policy covers the risk of a pillion rider. Over and above this, the clause in dispute ie., death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in a vehicle provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act came up for consideration before two Division Benches of this Court in the decisions reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In both these cases, the Division Benches held that by virtue of the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company is bound to indemnify. 4. Therefore, in the light of the circular as well as the two Division Benches decisions of this Court, it has to be held that the person carried in the vehicle is covered by the policy. Therefore, that finding does not call for any interference. So far as the interest is concerned, the Tribunal has used its discretion as envisaged under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, it also : 3 : M.A.C.A.No. 2835 OF 2008 cannot be interfered with at this stage as it being not arbitrary or excessive. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl