IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 2616 of 2008(D) ------------------------------- (AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(MV)104/04 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR) ............................. APPELLANT(S)/ PETITIONER : ---------------------------------- ELIZABETH, D/O. KUNJAMMA, CHARUVILA PUTHAN VEEDU, PANAVELI P.O. VETTIKKAVALA VELLAGE. KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------- 1. DANIEL.S/O.KUNJANDY CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PANAVELI P.O. KOTTARAKKARA. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISION NO.10 FLAT NO.101,106 N-1 BNC HOUSE, CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.JOE KALLIATH FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2616 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur in O.P.(MV)104/04. The claimant, the wife of the owner sustained injuries in a road accident while she was travelling as a passenger in the private car. The Tribunal awarded her a compensation of Rs.52,225/- and exonerated the insurance company from the liability. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in the light of the policy conditions that death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of M.V.Act is a condition attached to the policy and the policy being a package policy and in the M.A.C.A. 2616 OF 2008 -:2:- light of the enunciated principles laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813) the insurance company is bound to pay. 3. On the contra the learned counsel for the insurance company would contend that the status of a person travelling in a private car is that of a gratuitous passenger and therefore the dictum laid down in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh)2006 (2) KLT 884(SC) has to be extended and therefore the policy will not cover the risk of the passenger. After considering the rival submissions made, it has to be stated that the clause relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant had come up for consideration before the two Division Benches of this Court reported above such as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew. In both the cases the Division Bench has held that when there is a policy condition which undertakes to cover the risk of a person then by virtue of the terms and M.A.C.A. 2616 OF 2008 -:3:- conditions of the policy the insurance company is bound to pay and extra premium is not necessary in such cases. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal to the contra is against the decision of this Court and therefore it is liable to be set aside. In the result the MACA is allowed and the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company from the liability is set aside and it is made liable and directed to deposit the amount so ordered within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-