IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 1462 of 2006() ----------------------- OP(MV).98/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------- THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ANGAMALY NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI. MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P. JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1&2: ----------------------------------------- 1. SHAJU, S/O.DEVASSY, PLASSERY HOUSE, THIRUMUDIKKUNNU, KORATTY. 2. THOMAS, S/O. OUSEPH, ACHANAMPADAM, THIRUMUDIKKUNNU DESOM, KIZHAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. K.O.APREM, KATTAKKATHODU HOUSE, KORATTY EAST P.O. BY ADV. SMT. CAROLIN SINDHU VAZ - R2&R3 ADV. SRI. K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM- R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 1462/2006 ORDER ON I.A NO.1677 OF 2006 IN M.A.C.A NO.1462 OF 2006 DISMISSED SD/- 20/08/2008 M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm M. N. KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No. 1462 of 2006 ------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P(M.V) No. 98 of 2000. The claimant was a pillion rider in a motor bike bearing Registration No. KL-8/C1437. It was ridden by the first respondent and on account of his negligence in driving, two pedestrians who filed O.P .No. 97/2000 and O.P .No. 99 of 2000, were injured. The Tribunal found that the accident had taken place on account of negligence of the first respondent and awarded compensation in all the cases and in O.P . No. 98/2000, it awarded an amount of Rs. 17, 036/-. In all the three cases, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount. The contention of the Insurance Company in the appeal is to the effect that the appellant herein was a pillion rider in a bike, and it is only an Act Only Policy, which is proved by production of Exhibit B1. The main grievance is that though it has raised specific contention regarding its non-liability, the Tribunal did not consider it and therefore, requested the court to interfere with the question of the liability. If such a M.A.C.A.No. 1462/ 2006 Page numbers contention is raised certainly it has to be considered. Further, I feel because of the fact that this case was tried along with two other cases of the two other third parties, the Tribunal did not seriously take into consideration this aspect. If only an Act Only Policy is taken and no additional premium is paid, then a pillion rider may not be covered by such a policy. Therefore, it is a matter that requires consideration. Therefore,I set aside the award passed in O.P No. 99/2000, so far as it relates to the liability of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company as well as the owner of the vehicle are permitted to produce both oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal shall decide whether the pillion rider in the bike is liable to be compensated by the insurer by virtue of the terms and conditions of the policy. However, the quantum awarded is not interfered with. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 6/10/2008. M. N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE scm