IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 1097 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.2449/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP.BY ITS MANAGER, 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY --------------------------------------------------------- 1. ASHISH T.JOHN, KALAMBUKATTU HOUSE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU. 2. MARTIN JOSEPH, KOTTOOR HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL FOR R1 SRI.ANTONY KALAMBUKADAN FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1422/2009 IN MACA.NO.1097/2009 DISMISSED. 5.11.2009. SD/= M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE, /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JDUGE. cl M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.1097 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in OP(MV)No.2449/2004. The claimant, a passenger in a private car, sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.27,000/= and the insurance company has been directed to pay the said compensation. Aggrieved by the said decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal challenging the validity of such an order. 2. The claimant was a passenger in a private car and the vehicle was covered by a package policy. No additional premium has been paid to cover the risk of the passengers. It is contended by the learned counsel for the insurance company that when no premium is paid for the additional coverage of the passengers, the principles laid in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [(2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC)] may have to be applied to the passengers in a private car for the reason that their status will be that of a : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.1097 OF 2009 gratuitous passengers not covered by the policy. It is a contention worth considering so far as the payment of premium is concerned. 3. But the question whether there is a condition in the contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured whereby the insurer undertakes to cover the liability with respect to death of or bodily injury of a person travelling in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward is incorporated and the question whether by virtue of the terms of the insurance contract the company is bound to pay the compensation had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778). The clause therein ''except so far as it relates to the liability under the Motor Vehicles Act'' was also considered by another Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In both these cases, the Division Benches held that by virtue of the terms and conditions of the contract, the insurance company has undertaken to indemnify the liability of the owner, then the : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.1097 OF 2009 question of making payment of additional premium in such cases is not necessary and that the insurance company cannot get exonerated from the liability. 4. So, in the light of these two authoritative pronouncements rendered by this Court, I have to hold that by virtue of the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company is bound to indemnify and therefore, the direction given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the insurance company to pay the amount cannot be interfered with. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.1097 OF 2009