IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1972 of 2008() ----------------------------------- OPMV.1172/2001 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): IST RESPONDENTS & PETITIONER --------------- 1. VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR.N, REVATHY, KOLLAMKONAM, VILAPPILSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, GOWRI BHAVAN, MINNAMKODU, PAYAD, VILAPPIL VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR FOR R2 SRI.S.BHANU KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1972 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV) No. 1172/01. The claimant a pillion rider sustained injuries in a road accident. The vehicle was covered by a comprehensive policy. Conditions are attached to comprehensive policy. Section II(1)(i) of such conditions specifically states that the policy would cover the risk of any person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. This clause came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008 (3) KHC 522]. The Division Bench held that no additional premium is necessary in the light of the conditions of the policy takes in and covers the person who is carried in a vehicle other than for hire or reward. So in the light of the said decision and and also from the terms and conditions of the poslicy, the Insurance Company cannot get exonerated from the liability. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and hence it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm