IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 1518 of 2006(A) ------------------------------ OPMV.1091/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S):/3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOTTAYAM, NOW REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------- 1. ABY KURIAKOSE, KIZHAKKEMANALEL HOUSE, NATTASSERY KARA, PERUMBAIKADU VILLAGE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. T.J.LUKOSE, THARAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBAIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 3. STEEPHAN ITTIYAVIRAH, PADAMATTATHIL HOUSE, NATTASSERY KARA, PERUMBAIKADU VILLAGE, S.H.MOUNT.P.O., KOTTAYAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1518 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)1091/01. The claimant, a pillion rider sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.20,493/- and all the respondents were made jointly and severally liable for the same. It is against that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. It is the contention of the insurance company that the policy issued is only an Act only policy and therefore it is not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal had dealt with this question in paragraph 10 of the award and it had taken a view that after the amended Act which came into force on 1.7.89 the gratuitous passengers in a vehicle of any type or class and including a pillion rider of a motorcycle are entitled to the insurance coverage. I feel the Tribunal's finding is totally erroneous for the following reasons. M.A.C.A. 1518 OF 2006 -:2:- 3. The Apex Court had considered the question of liability of a pillion rider in a vehicle which is only covered by an Act only policy. In the decision reported in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh) 2006 (2) KLT 884(SC) the Apex Court held that when there is no additional premium is paid for the coverage of a pillion rider in an Act only policy the status of the person travelling in a two wheeler is that of a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount. 4. Admittedly, here the policy is an Act only policy. There is no case for the parties that additional premium is paid. So the dictum laid down in Tilak Singh's case strictly applies to the facts of the case. When it is so the policy issued does not cover the risk of a pillion rider and therefore the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the liability is concerned and the insurance company is totally exonerated from the liability and the M.A.C.A. 1518 OF 2006 -:3:- claimant is entitled to receive the amount from respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition jointly and severally. If any amount is deposited by the insurance company that shall be reimbursed to the company on proper application. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-