IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 565 of 2009() ----------------------------------- OPMV.555/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): ORIGINAL PETITIONER ----------------------- P.A.RAKESH, S/O.ANTONY, PEREPARAMBIL HOUSE, KONGORPPILLY P.O., ALANGAD, PARAVUR TALUK, EKM.DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) MR.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR) MR.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) RESPONDENT(S): ORIGINAL IST RESPONDENT 1 AND 2: ------------------------------- 1. ANTONY FRANCIS, S/O.FRANCIS, MANAKKIL HOUSE, NEAR PUTHIYAROAD JUNCTION, PANAYIKULAM P.O., ALANGAD, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, URUMBATH BUILDINGS, PUMB JUNCTION, ALUVA P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R2 BY MR.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE R2 BY ADV. MR.P.JACOB MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 565 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of October, 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)555/04. The claimant a pillion rider in a motor bike sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000 and exonerated the insurance company from the liability. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. It has to be stated that the policy issued is a package policy and it contains the conditions S.II(i) that death or bodily injury to any person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. In some of the policies the word 'except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of M.V.Act. Both these conditions have come up for interpretation before two Division Benches of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In Hydrose's case the court held that when the conditions of the policy itself undertakes to cover the risk of a person no additional premium is necessary M.A.C.A. 565 OF 2009 -:2:- and by virtue of the terms of the contract, the liability has to be borne by the insurance company. In the other case the Division Bench opined that just because the words “except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of M.V.Act” is incorporated, the benefit conferred under the Hydrose's case cannot be denied to the parties. Therefore in the light of the authenticated pronouncement it has to be held that the insurance company is bound to pay the amount under the conditions of the policy. The question of payment of wider premium is not necessary in the light of these conditions. Therefore I vacate the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the liability of the insurance company and direct the insurance company to pay the amount. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the finding of exoneration of liability by the insurance company is vacated and the insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-