IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 251 of 2008(F) ----------------------------------- O.P.(MV).NO.2503/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR. .................... APPELLANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.K.PANICKER. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 & PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSE, S/O.LAZER, AKKARAPATTIVEETTIL HOUSE, NELLIKUNNU DESOM, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, NAMBRATH ANGADI, THRISSUR. 2. T.P.KOCHAPPU, HOUSE NO.8/100, THEKKADAN HOUSE, EAST FORT, THRISSUR. 3. VARGHESE T.P., S/O.PAILY, THELAKKADAN HOUSE, NELLIKKUNNUKARA, SOUHARDA NAGAR, THRISSUR - 5. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM FOR R3, ADV. SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH FOR R2. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.251 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of August 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)No.2503 of 2002. The insurance company had challenged the finding of the Tribunal on the question of the liability of the company to cover a pillion rider as well as on other grounds. 2. Admittedly the claimant was a pillion rider in a two wheeler. The 3rd respondent insurance company produced Ext.B1 policy. The Tribunal held that Ext.B1 policy is a comprehensive policy covering two riders. The Tribunal further held that it is specifically noted in Ext.B1 that the seating capacity of the vehicle insured was two. Just because the seating capacity of a vehicle is two one cannot jump into the conclusion that they are covered by the issuance of a policy. If it is only an Act only policy, it will not cover a pillion rider as has been held by the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Tilak Singh(2006(2) KLT 884(SC). But, there may be cases where an additional premium is paid, which will be included in a MACA 251/2008 -:2:- comprehensive policy or even in a package policy. So it is the terms and conditions of the policy that have to be looked into by the Tribunal coupled with the factum of payment of additional premium. Unfortunately the Tribunal has not directed its mind in that direction and had jumped into the conclusion that comprehensive policy covers a pillion rider as well. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration. It is the duty of the owner as well as the insurance company to establish before the Tribunal what is the real nature of the policy and whether it covers a pillion rider or not. So the said finding is set aside and the matter has to go back. Therefore the MACA is disposed of and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration regarding the impact of the policy Ext.B1 and find whether it covers a pillion rider or not. Parties are permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15.9.2008. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-