IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 2743 of 2008() ----------------------------------- O.P.(MV).2449/04, 2454/2004, 2568/04 AND 2571/04 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AMMINI JOSEPH KALAMBUKATTU HOUSE THALAYOLAPARAMBU. 2. MARTIN JOSEPH, KOTTOOR HOUSE UDAYAMPEROOR PO., ERNAKULAM. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 2743 of 2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO.3210/2008 IN MACA NO.2743/2008 CLOSED 06/10/2009. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.2743 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 6th day of October, 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.2454/2004. The claimant who sustained injuries in a road accident has been awarded a compensation of Rs.46,100/= and the insurance company is made liable to pay the same. Aggrieved by the direction to the insurance company to pay the amount, it has come up in appeal before this Court. 2. The contention is that the claimant was a passenger in a private vehicle covered by a policy in which no additional premium has been collected for the purpose of covering the risk of the passengers. So, it was contended that the status of a passenger in such a private car is that of a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy and therefore, the statutory policy does not cover the risk of such person for the reason that he is not a third party. But the policy in the case is a comprehensive policy. The Tribunal in Para-29 of the award has extracted the terms : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.2743 OF 2008 and conditions and held that as per Section II(1)(i) thereof covers the risk on account of death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward. This very clause came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778). This Court held that when the conditions of the policy makes it very clear that a person carried in a vehicle other than for hire or reward is undertaken to be covered by the policy then collection of additional premium is not necessary to cover such passenger. So, in the light of the settled position as far as this case is concerned, it has to be held that the insurance company is bound to indemnify the owner in turn making the payment to the claimant and therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.2743 OF 2008