IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1690 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.1546/2004 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.2: -------------------------------------------------------- M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS NO.1: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJESH, S/O.MADHAVAN, ASARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM.P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 2. ANISH.T.N, S/O.NARAYANAN, THAYIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM.P.O.,KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN FOR R1 SRI.R.REJI FOR R1 SRI.BIPIN.B. FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.2013/2008 IN M.A.C.A.NO.1690/2008 DISMISSED 9/12/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1690 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV) No.1546/2004. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded compensation of Rs. 15,700/-. It is against that decision the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. It is the contention of the Insurance Company that the claimant being a pillion rider and as no additional premium is paid, the policy does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. It is further submitted that in the light of the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak singh [2006 (2) KLT 884], the Insurance company is not bound to indemnify. The tribunal has considered the contention of the Insurance Company in para 12 of the award. It is stated therein that the policy issued is not an Act only policy but a package policy which contains the clause that any person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward is also covered by the conditions of the policy. This clause came up M.A.C.A. 1690/2008 -2- for consideration before the Division Bench of this court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008 (3) KHC 522]. The Division Bench of this court held that when there is such a specific condition in the policy, the Insurance Company cannot be get exonerated from the liability. Therefore this court cannot find fault with the tribunal for affixing the liability on the Insurance company. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm