IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 104 of 2009(C) ----------------------- OPMV.1667/2004 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ NISHA, W/O.MOHANDAS, KULATHUMMAKKEL VEEDU, MANJADI, POTHENPURAM PO., MEENADOM VILAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------- 1. ABOOBACKER.E.M., EDAKKALAMATTOM, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM. 2. MOHAN DAS, KULATHUMAKKIL VEEDU POTHENPURAM PO.,MENADOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CSI SQUARE, BAKER HILL, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 SRI.H.HAMZA ROWTHER FOR R1 SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 104 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th 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, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)1667/04. The claimant, a lady sustained injuries in a road accident and she has been awarded a compensation of Rs.24,500/- and the insurance company had been exonerated from the liability. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal challenging the quantum as well as exoneration of the liability of the insurance company. 2. Heard the counsel for all. So far as the claimant is concerned it can be seen that she had sustained an anterior dislocation with fracture on the right elbow and she was treated in the Medical College Hospital at Kottayam. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs.5,000/- for loss of earnings, Rs.7,000/- for loss of amenities and other expenses actually incurred by the claimant. So all the heads are properly compensated and M.A.C.A. 104 OF 2009 -:2:- therefore the compensation awarded does not call for any interference. 3. So far as the liability is concerned the learned counsel for the appellant in fairness had shown me the policy issued which is only an act only policy. Admittedly the claimant was a pillion rider. The matter is squarely covered by the Apex Court decision in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh)2006 (2) KLT 884(SC). When no additional premium is paid then the status of a person travelling in a vehicle covered by an Act only Policy is only that of a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount. So that finding also cannot be interfered with. From these discussions I hold that there is nothing to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal and therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-