IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 1692 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.915/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. SHYAMALA BALU, W/O.LATE BALAU AGED 42 YEARS, DHANYALAYAM, AVERAPARAMBU, HARIJAN COLONY, KADALALYI.P.O, KANNUR DIST.670 007, NOW RESIDING AT C/O.MULLASSERY HOUSE, SANTHIGIRI, ATHANI.P.O, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. DHANYA.B, D/O.LATE BALU AGED 23 YEARS.. DO.. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) SRI.MARTIN PAUL RESPONDENT: --------------- ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, BRANCH OFFICE 1ST FLOOR, KALLOKKARAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, ANGAMALY.P.O. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ----------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1692 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Basheer, J. The appellants are the wife and daughter of deceased Balu, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor accident. The appellants claimed compensation from the owner and insurer of the two wheeler in which deceased Balu was travelling as a pillion rider when the accident took place. 2. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.10,59,350/- towards compensation. Since the policy in respect of the two wheeler was only an “Act Only Policy”, the Tribunal found that respondent No.2, Insurance Company, would not be liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Accordingly, respondent No.2, Insurance Company, was exonerated and respondent No.1, owner, was directed to pay the compensation M.A.C.A.No.1692/2008 2 to the appellants. The said finding is challenged by the appellants in this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that, going by the nature of the policy, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. We have also perused the copy of the policy, which is made available to us. It is evident that the policy is an “Act Only Policy”. It is seen that no additional premium was collected by the Insurance Company for the pillion rider. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal is legally valid. We do not find any reason to interfere with the above finding entered by the Tribunal. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ps