IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 2418 of 2008(G) ---------------------------- OPMV.2913/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .......................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- JANCY.V.M, W/O.MALIKKAL BABU SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT MAMBILLY HOUSE, KOORKENCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------- 1. BABU SEBASTIAN, S/O.MALIKKAL SEBASTIAN, NOW RESIDING AT MAMBILLY HOUSE, KOORKENCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DOMBIVILI BRANCH, NATV BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, MANAPADA ROAD, DOMBIVILI EAST, MUMBAI. ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2418 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)2913/01. The claimant, a school teacher by profession sustained injuries in a road accident and she has been awarded a compensation of Rs.38,750/-. The insurance company was exonerated form the liability on the ground that no additional premium is paid for the coverage of a passenger in a private car. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Let me first consider about the quantum. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the claimant was having a salary of Rs.6,700/- per mensum and Ext.A16 revealed that she was on leave from 6th June, 2001 to 22nd August, 2001. The claimant was only aged 36 years at the time of the accident. So under ordinary circumstances when a person is forced to take leave on account of the injuries sustained in an accident then necessarily one has to take M.A.C.A. 2418 OF 2008 -:2:- leave without pay at a later point and that is why Courts have expressed the view that in such cases loss of earnings has to be compensated. The Tribunal has only taken into consideration the amount that is received by the claimant at that time which shall not be a guiding principle in awarding compensation when a person is forced to take leave on account of the injuries sustained. Therefore I feel this is a fit case where after deleting HRA etc. Rs.10,000/- can be fixed as the income out of which Rs.3,000/- has been granted and therefore Rs.7,000/- will be the additional compensation under that head. 3. Similarly, it is clear that the teacher's hand was under plaster cast for 1½ months and she was not able to do any work in the house as well and therefore taking into consideration that aspect it has to be held that the lady has undergone pain and sufferings during that period for which I enhance the compensation by Rs.2,000/-. On all other heads there is proper award of compensation by the Tribunal. Therefore the claimant is entitled to an additional M.A.C.A. 2418 OF 2008 -:3:- compensation of Rs.9,000/-. 4. So far as the liability of the insurance company is concerned admittedly it is a comprehensive/package policy and there are conditions mentioned as clause II(I) (i) which deals with respect to death or injury to any person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward that the insurance company by virtue of the terms and conditions of the policy had undertaken to cover the risk. Now the position is well clarified by a Circular issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority dated 16.11.2009 wherein it is reiterated that the passengers in a private car or a pillion rider in a motorbike are covered by the terms of the the Standard Motor Package Policy. 5. Over and above this, the said clause has come up for consideration before two Division Benches of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In both these cases the Division Benches had taken the view that by virtue of the terms and conditions of the M.A.C.A. 2418 OF 2008 -:4:- contract of insurance the insurance company has undertaken to cover the risk of person and therefore payment of additional premium is not necessary in such cases. So in the light of the clarificatory circular coupled with the authoritative pronouncements of this Court it has to be held that the insurance company is liable. Therefore the appeal is allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.9,000/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount as well as the amount originally awarded by the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-