IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 235 of 2009() --------------------------------- OPMV.896/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL TOWERS, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. MR.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 & PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUNIL C.T., CHEERAMVELIL HOUSE VADAYAR P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM. 2. ALEX MATHEW, VETTICKATHADATHIL HOUSE KAPPUMTHALA PO, PARAMBRAM. 3. SREEJITH VENU, S/O. VENU, CHERUVUKALAYIL HOUSE, KAPPUMTHALA, NOW RESIDING AT MANIYAMTHOTTATHIL, KALATHOOR PO, KURAVILANGAD. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 235 of 2009 ORDER ON I.A.265/2009 IN MACA. NO.235/2009 DISMISSED. 16/09/2009. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 235 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(MV)896/06. The claimant therein was a pillion rider who sustained injuries in a road accident. The insurance company contended that the petitioner being a pillion rider to a two wheeler he is not covered by the terms of the policy and therefore the company is liable to be exonerated from the liability. The said question has been the subject matter in various decisions. The Apex Court in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh)2006 (2) KLT 884(SC) held that when the policy issued is only an Act only policy it will not take in the risk of a pillion rider. The Apex Court made it further clear that the status of such a person will be that of a gratuitous passenger. But two Division Bench of this court considered the terms and conditions of the policy, when the policy issued is either a comprehensive M.A.C.A. 235 OF 2009 -:2:- policy or a package policy. It is true that comprehensive policy by itself does not mean that it covers the risk of everything. Ordinarily a comprehensive policy is understood as one which covers the risk of a third party besides covering the risk of own property damage of the vehicle. But to cover that aspect one may have to pay the additional premium. Every policy is followed by conditions. The Division Bench of this court considered this matter in the decision reported in 2008 (3) KLT 778 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose). It was a policy where the conditions was to the effect that the policy will cover the death or bodily injury to any person including the person conveyed in or on the motorcycle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward. But the Division Bench held that by virtue of the terms of the conditions of policy there is an undertaking by the insurance company to cover the risk of a person travelling in a motor vehicle when his status is not one for hire or reward. Then another judicial proposition arises that subsequent to the particular period there was a clause M.A.C.A. 235 OF 2009 -:3:- incorporated in many policies which is read as “except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act”. It has also come up before consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In the summary of the case it is mentioned as follows. “A gratuitous passenger suffered injuries in an accident, though covered under the policy the insurance company was exonerated from liability on the interpretation of clause “but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of 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.” Relying on that clause and also on the decision reported in Mathew Joseph v. Janaki (2007 (1) KLT 747(FB) the Tribunal absolved the Company from the liability to pay the amount. This Court in appeal reversed that finding and in clause (iv) held that coverage of a gratuitous passenger M.A.C.A. 235 OF 2009 -:4:- under the policy is not diluted by the further clause except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of the M.V.Act as it is related to a claim by a person who was carried in the vehicle in the course of employment. So in the light of this two rulings of the Division Bench it has to be held that the terms and conditions of the policy which is extracted in the award at paragraph 14 would squarely cover the risk of a pillion rider travelling in a vehicle and therefore the award of the Tribunal does not call for any interference and so the appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-