IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 534 of 2008() --------------------------------- OPMV.2576/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REP. BY ITS ASST.MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11, BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENT/1ST PETITIONERS RESPECTIVELY: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SHAJI PAULSON, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS D/O. DEVASSY, CHIRAMMEL HOUSE P.O. ELATHURUTH, THRISSUR DIST. 2. PAULSON VARGHESE @ PAUL VARGHESE S/O.VARGHESE, PORATHUKARAN HOUSE THRIKKUMARAKUDAM P.O., AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.534 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of October 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)No.2576 of 2001. The claimant, a pillion rider in a scooter, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.68,600/- with 7% interest. It directed the insurance company to pay the amount. It is against that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. Respondents are served. But, there is no appearance for them. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the policy issued in this case does not cover a pillion rider and that no additional premium has been paid and therefore in the light of the dictum laid down in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Tilak Singh(2006(2) KLT 884(SC) the company is not bound to indemnify the insured. The Tribunal held that since a premium of Rs.356/- is paid it will cover the pillion rider as well and held that the insurance company cannot escape from the liability. I am afraid that such a finding MACA 534/2008 -:2:- cannot be arrived at on a perusal of the policy. A perusal of the policy would reveal that for the own party damage, the owner has paid Rs.227/-. He has paid Rs.77/- for the 3rd party risk and Rs.50/- for covering the 3rd party damage to the property. The premium paid does not show that any amount has been collected for the purpose of covering a pillion rider. There is no contention for the owner or the claimant that there are some other conditions attached to the policy which by terms of contract will cover the pillion rider. So, it is only the policy that has to be taken into consideration in this case and when the premium paid in the policy is referred to, it has to be stated that no additional premium is paid to cover the risk of a pillion rider. When it is so, the dictum laid down in Tilak Singh's(supra) case will squarely apply to the facts of this case and the status of the claimant will that of a gratuitous passenger not covered under the policy. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company is bound to indemnify the owner is incorrect and it is liable to be set aside. Therefore I allow the appeal and set aside the finding regarding the liability of the insurance company and it is totally exonerated from the liability and the claimant is at liberty to proceed against the first respondent in the claim petition for realisation of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The amount deposited by the insurance company shall be returned to it on MACA 534/2008 -:3:- proper application. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-