IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1237 of 2008() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/12/2007 IN OPMV 572/05 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD, COCHIN-11. BY ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.J.JOSEPH @ JAMES, PULLOLIL HOUSE, VAGAMON P.O. 2. JOSE THOMAS, KOLLAMPARAMBIL, BHARANANGANAM P.O. 3. JUSTIN JOSEPH, PULLOLIL, VAGAMON P.O. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1237 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 20th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant insurance company questions the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the contention that pillion rider is not covered as per the policy and separate premium was not paid in respect of the pillion rider. They rely on the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and others (AIR 2006 SC 1576). It is well settled law that apart from the statutory liability, with regard to extra coverage, the matter will depend upon the conditions of the policy as it is a contractual liability. Condition No.2 of Ext.B1 policy which is a package policy and not an act policy reads as follows: “Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of - death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the insured vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of MACA.1237/2008 2 and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured. - Damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured.” The Tribunal has rightly relied on the three member bench decision of the Apex Court in Amrit Lal Sood and another v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and others (1998 ACJ 531) wherein it was observed as follows: “Thus under section II 1(a) of the policy the insurer has agreed to indemnify the insured against all sums which the insured shall become legally laiable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to `any person'. The expression `any person' would undoubtedly include an occupant of the car who is gratuitously travelling in the car. The remaining part of clause (a) relates to cases of death or injury arising out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured. In such cases, the liability of the insurer is only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of section 95 of the Act. In so far as gratuitous passengers are concerned, there is o limitation in the policy as such. Hence, under the terms of the policy, the insurer is liable to satisfy the award passed in favour of the claimant. We are unable to agree with the view expressed by the High Court in this case as the terms of the policy are unambiguous.” MACA.1237/2008 3 Claimant in this case was undoubtedly covered as per the policy condition No.2 in Ext.B1 policy admittedly issued by the appellant insurance company. It was held by the Apex Court in Tilak Singh's case (supra) that as per the policy conditions in that case, pillion rider was not covered. Here, question is entirely different in view of the specific policy conditions in the package policy. It is true that nomenclature of the policy is not a matter to be considered. Whether the policy called package policy or comprehensive polic, whether as per the terms of the policy he can be covered etc. are the questions to be considered and terms of the policy are important. It is true that there is no statutory liability to cover a pillion rider. He is not a third party. For coverage of risks other than that is statutorily covered, one has to look into the terms of the policy. Even in comprehensive policies some risks are not covered. There may be several types of comprehensive policies. If the policy covers statutory liability and own damage only, insurance company has no liability for other risks as held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M.Jaya (AIR 2002 SC 651). Here, there is specific coverage of gratuitous passenger as per condition No.2. There is no specific limit also made in schedule regarding the amount of liability. In this case, in view of the specific terms of the policy in MACA.1237/2008 4 question, we are of the view that no interference is required as the pillion rider is also covered under the policy. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks