IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1035 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.312/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3: -------------------------------------------------- M/S.ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD. SUNDARAM TOWERS, 45 & 46 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 014 NOW OFFICE AT SORRENTO BUILDING NO.6, IST FLOOR, LATTICO BRIDGE ROAD, ADAYAR, CHENNAI - 6000014. BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMLA, AGED 26 YEARS, W/O.DECEASED SAJID @ ANWAR SAJI. 2. M.AHMAD, AGED 60 YEARS, F/O.DECEASED SAJID @ ANWAR SAJI. 3. BEEVI, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.M.AHMAD. 4. MOHAMMED AFNAS (MINOR) AGED 7 YEARS, S/O.DECEASED SAJID @ ANWAR SAJI. 5. MOHAMMED ANAS (MINOR) AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.DECEASED SAJID @ ANWAR SAJI. 4TH & 5TH MINOR PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND & GUARDIAN MOTHER IST PETITIONER RAMLA ALL ARE RESIDING AT MANGATTIRI HOUSE, KOTT.KALLINGAL, P.O.TIRUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. FASALUL ABID, S/O.MAMMUTTY, KOLAMBAN HOUSE, PAZHAMKULANGARA P.O. TIRUR, TIRUR TALUK. 7. NOUSHAD K.P., S/O.MAMMI, KUNNATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, PAN BAZAR, P.O.TIRUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1251/2008 IN M.A.C.A.NO.1035/2008 DISMISSED 5/06/2008 SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss J.B. Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1035 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. A young man of 30 years died in a motor accident leaving his 26 year old widow, two minor children and parents and they filed an application for compensation. The tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the appellant insurance company, The contention of the insurance company is that no contribution was received for personal coverage of the passenger. He was a passenger in a private vehicle and, therefore, compensation is not payable and he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Shimla v.Tilak Singh and others (AIR 2006 SC 1576). In that case, there was no coverage for passengers in the vehicle. Even though the policy was a comprehensive policy, coverage was only for a third party liability for employees under the Workmen's Compensation Act and property damage as well as own damage of the vehicle. In Amrith Lal Sood and another v. Kaushalya Devi Thapper and others ((1998) 3 SCC M.A.C.A.No.1035/2008 2 744) also, it is held that insurance is governed by the terms of the policy whether it is comprehensive or not. The terms of the policy is mentioned in Clause II (1) (i) of Ext.B1 policy which reads as follows: "Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the schedule hereto the company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of:- (i) death of 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 the Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured." It clearly shows that as per the policy condition, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation for death or bodily injury to any persons including occupants carried in the vehicle provided that such occupants are carried not for hire or reward. Admittedly, deceased was not carried for any reward. He is squarely covered under the provisions of the policy. The amount collected as premium is not the deciding factor. What is provided in the policy is important and it has been held by the Apex Court that even if there is ambiguity in the policy, the policy should be interpreted in M.A.C.A.No.1035/2008 3 favour of the insured and against the company which made the contract. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the terms of the policy and as per the policy conditions, gratuitous passengers travelling in the vehicle are covered and hence the tribunal was right in imposing liability on the appellant insurance company. We see no merit in the appeal. Appeal dismissed. J.B.Koshy Judge P.N.Ravindran Judge vaa M.A.C.A.No.1035/2008 4 J.B. KOSHY AND P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ. ------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1035 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:5th June, 2008