IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 1969 of 2008(E) ----------------------- OPMV.34/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------- THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. ERNAKULAM BRANCH REPRESENTED BY THE ASST MANAGER,OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD HOSPITAL ROAD ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ANWAR, S/O. SAINULABDEEN, KAIPPILLYPARAMBIL HOUSE,KAITHARAM,PARAVUR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. AMBILI SURESH,W/O.SURESH 34/312,PARTHIBHA, PADIVATTOM,EDAPPILLI P.O. KOCHI-24. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. M.B.SAJITH @ SAJI, S/O.T.K.BALAN H/NO.55/977 ,MANGALTHU HOUSE MURIKKOM MOOLA, PADAMUGHAL, KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) FOR R1 SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR) FOR R1 SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1969 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P.(MV)34/03. The claimant, a pillion rider sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.33,250/-. It rejected the contention of the insurance company regarding the non-coverage and it is against that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for the insurance company as well as the claimant. The Tribunal had taken a view that since Ext.B1 is a comprehensive policy it covers the entire risk. I am afraid that such a finding is not sustainable. A comprehensive policy does not mean that it covers the risk of everyone as stated by the Tribunal. Premium is collected for own property damages with third party risk, some times separate premium for the driver as well or some times personal accident coverage for two persons. In order to M.A.C.A. 1969 OF 2008 -:2:- cover a pillion rider there must be additional premium paid for that purpose. So far as the premium aspect is concerned it has to be looked into before taking a decision. But it has to be held that in some of the comprehensive policies there are conditions whereby the insurance company contracts to undertake the liability of any person travelling in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward just like Clause II(1)(i) in many policies. Since the conditions of the policy is not before the Court it was not in a position to find out the terms and conditions of the policy. In a recent decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose [2008 (3) KHC 522(DB) a Division Bench of this Court has held that if the insurance company contracts to cover the risk of a person travelling in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward then by virtue of the terms of the contract of insurance there is a liability for the insurance company and no additional premium need be collected for that purpose. But these are all matters which the Tribunal has to decide on materials supplied by the parties. Therefore I set aside the M.A.C.A. 1969 OF 2008 -:3:- award of the Tribunal so far as it relates to the liability part is concerned and direct the Tribunal to permit the insurance company to find out the conditions of the policy as well and let in evidence and decide the question in accordance with law. Since the owner of the vehicle will be affected and as he has not chosen to appear before this Court the insurance company is directed to take out summons to the owner after it enters appearance before the Tribunal. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-