IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 1533 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.575/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNHAMMED, S/O.UMMERKUTTY, AGED 33 YEARS MARUTHERI PARAMBATH (H), NARAKKOD, KEEZHARIYOOR PO KOYILANDY. 2. NAFEESA, W/O.BEERANKUTTY, POOTHUR KUZHIYIL HOUSE, MANIPURAM P.O., KAREETIPARAMBA, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE, (R.C.OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE KL-11-T/9773). 3. RAJEESH P.M., S/O.CHEKKOOTTY, PUTHIYDEATH MOOTHAL, KEEZHARIYOOR P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK,DRIVER OF MOTOR CYCLE KL-11-T/9773 D.L.NO.1854/DB/04. ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN FOR R1 & 3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1820/2009 IN MACA.NO.1533/2009 DISMISSED 18.11.2009 SD/= M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE. cl M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.1533 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Vadakara in OP(MV)No.575/2006. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.21,713/= and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. Dissatisfied with the finding on liability, the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the claimant. The learned counsel for the insurance company very strongly contends before me that the policy though issued is a package policy, no additional premium has been paid to cover the risk of a person travelling in a two wheeler. Therefore, she requested this Court to extend the Principles in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [(2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC)] and categorize the claimant as a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy. : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.1533 OF 2009 3. On the contra, the learned counsel for the claimant would submit before me that the policy relied on is a package policy, which contains a condition that the insurance company has undertaken to cover the risk of a person in the form of death or injury arising out of the use of a motor vehicle provided, it is not for hire or reward. We find such conditions in the package policy and there cannot be any serious dispute about non existence of the same in the policy. This clause as well as a clause which was introduced after 2001 i.e., “except so far as it relates to the liability under the Motor Vehicles Act” came up for consideration before two Division Benches of this Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In both these decisions, the Division Benches held that by virtue of the terms and conditions of the contract, the insurance company has undertaken to indemnify the insured in cases of death or bodily injury to any person arising out of the use of the motor vehicles. When such a condition is there, there is no : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.1533 OF 2009 necessity to pay premium and by the terms of the contract the insurance company is bound to pay. 4. In the light of the authoritative pronouncements by the Division Benches of this Court on the point, nothing further remains to be decided and therefore, following the said dictum, I hold that the Tribunal has not erred in arriving at a finding regarding the liability of the insurance company. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl