IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 2407 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.1103/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND 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 RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- 1. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.RAZILAYYAN NADAR, BRIGHT BHAVAN, PANNIMALA, KOOTHALI P.O., VELLARADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MANIAN, S/O.LEKSHMANAN, LALI BHAVANAM KIZHAKKE PANNI MALA, KOOTHALI P.O., VELLARADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY // THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 2407 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The insurer/second respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. The claimant, a pillion rider claimed compensation against the rider/owner of the motor cycle and the Insurance Company for personal injuries suffered by him as a result of the motor accident which took place on 5.11.2001. 2. Admittedly, it was not an Act only policy. It was a comprehensive package policy. It is produced as Ext.A11/B1. The Tribunal held that the claimant suffered loss on account of the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle and came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.1,20,450/- as compensation along with interest and costs. The Tribunal proceeded to specifically hold that the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner/insured who is liable to compensate the victim. 3. The short contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this case is that though the policy is a comprehensive policy, M.A.C.A. NO.2407/2008 2 the insured's liability of the pillion rider is not covered. Attention of the learned counsel for the appellant was drawn to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Hydrose, 2008(3) K.L.T. 778. Learned counsel was requested to explain how the dictum laid down in the said case will not apply to the facts of the instant case. Counsel accepts that the terms of the policy is identical in both cases and submits that this appeal was preferred prior to the pronouncement of the dictum in the said case. We are satisfied that in the light of the decision in Hydrose's Case (supra), there is no merit in the challenge raised in this appeal. It is significant that there is no contention that the terms of the policy is in any way different from the terms of the policy referred to and extracted in the above decision. 4. The appeal, we must consequently hold, is without any merit and the same is dismissed. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO.2407/2008 3 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.2407/2008 JUDGMENT 25th March, 2009 M.A.C.A. NO.2407/2008 4