IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 1882 of 2008(C) ----------------------------- OPMV.1577/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/ 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND IST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJESH, PARASSERIL HOUSE, PADIMATTUMCHERRY, PADINJAREMURY KARA, NADUVILE VILLAGE. 2. SUNIL KUMAR, PANDIYATH HOUSE, PADINJATTUMCHERY, PADINJAREMURI KARA, NADUVILE VILLAGE. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1882 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)1577/03. The claimant is a pillion rider. The contention of the insurance company is that as no additional premium is collected to cover a pillion rider in the light of the enunciated principle in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (2) KLT 884(SC) the claimant is not liable to be covered under the policy. The Tribunal found that the policy is not an Act only policy but it is a package policy. The Tribunal relied upon a specific condition embodied in the terms and conditions of the policy namely S. II 1 (i) which according to them covers the risk for death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the insured vehicle, provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward. So when this clause is taken into consideration irrespective of the payment of any additional premium the M.A.C.A. 1882 OF 2008 -:2:- clause takes in a person who travels in a motor vehicle as laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar 1998 (3) SCC 744. It has to be stated that the insurance company and the party are entitled to enter into a contract whereby there can be wider coverage. When this clause is read it can be seen that it is a wider coverage without insisting for payment of additional premium. This same clause has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose [2008 (3) KHC 522(DB) and this Court held that the said clause takes in a pillion rider as well. So in the light of the said decision and on the basis of the discussions made above I hold that the insurance company cannot be exonerated from the liability. I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the Tribunal and therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-