IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1825 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.1019/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENT 1 & ADDL.3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAPPAN NAIR, KURACHIRA, KOKKATHAMANGALAM P.O. CHERTHALA. 2. PREDHYUMMA PANICKER, SOBHANALAYAM, VARANAD.P.O., CHERTHALA. 3. SOBHANAKUMARI, SOBHANALAYAM, VARANAD. P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH - R1 SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2038/2006 IN M.A.C.A.NO.1825/2006 DISMISSED 26/06/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1825 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P.(MV)1019/01. The claimant therein was a pillion rider who sustained injuries in a road accident. In that accident a pedestrian also was involved, he died and another award is passed in O.P.1037/01. Here, it is the insurance company who has come up in appeal before this Court challenging the direction of the Tribunal to pay the amount to the claimant. A perusal of the written statement would reveal that insurance company has raised a contention that the claimant is a pillion rider who is not entitled to compensation. Ext.B1 is the policy. It admittedly is an Act only policy. In paragraph 3 of the written statement it is specifically contended that the policy is an Act only policy and it does not cover the pillion rider. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not considered that aspect in the proper perspective. But being a question of law it can be decided by this Court at this stage. M.A.C.A. 1825 OF 2006 -:2:- 2. In the decision reported in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (4) SCC 404)] it is held that a statutory insurance policy intended to cover risk to life or damage to properties of third parties will not cover the risk of death or injury to a gratuitous passenger carried in a private vehicle. The Apex Court also held that “although the observations made in Asha Rani case, 2003 (1) KLT 165 were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contention of the appellant insurance company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger.” In the light of this decision the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company has to pay the amount is liable to be vacated and the insurance company is exonerated from the liability. M.A.C.A. 1825 OF 2006 -:3:- In the result, the MACA is allowed and the award directing the insurance company to deposit the amount is vacated and it is exonerated from the liability. First respondent and additional respondent 3 in the claim petition are made jointly and severally liable to pay the amount and the claimant is at liberty to realise it from them in accordance with law. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-