IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 2175 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.865/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35 BY SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAYA JAMES, W/O.JAMES MANAYIL HOUSE, KOOROPPADA VILLAGE. 2. JAMESH.M.P, MANAYIL HOUSE, KOOROPPADA VILLAGE. BY MR.A.K.HARIDAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.2175/2008 ORDER IN 2588/2008 IN M.A.C.A.No.2175/2008 DISMISSED. Sd/- M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE 07/01/2010 TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN,J =========================== M.A.C.A.No.2175 of 2008 =========================== Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in O.P.(M.V).No.865/2004. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.24,600/-(Rupees twenty four thousand and six hundred). It had made the Insurance Company liable for the reason that the vehicle is covered by a package policy. The Insurance Company has come up in appeal contenting that since no additional premium is paid the Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner. The position is fairly settled now in the decisions reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In both these decisions the Honourable Judges of this Court considered the condition that when the Insurance Company has undertaken to cover the risk in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including occupant(s) carried in a motor vehicle other than the hire or reward, the Court held that the conditions M.A.C.A..No.2175/2008 2 of the policy covers risk and no additional premium is necessary. Subsequent to this by virtue of a Circular dated 16.11.2009 Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority had also clarified that vehicle covered by package policy covers the risk of pillion riders as well as the passengers in a private vehicle. Therefore, in the light of the two decisions coupled with the clarification, the Insurance company is liable to pay the amount. Therefore, the appeal lacks merits and hence, it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE dvs