IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1271 of 2008 --------------------------------------- OPMV.33/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL TOWERS, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 & PETITIONER: 1. SOLY MOL, THURUTHEL HOUSE, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. P.T.NISHAD, POTHAMPARAMBU HOUSE, POWER HOUSE WARD, ALAPPUZHA NORTH. 3. INDRAJITH, S/O IMPASAGARAN, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, POWER HOUSE WARD, ALAPPUZHA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. --------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1271 of 2008 --------------------------------- JUDGMENT Koshy, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The only contention raised by the Insurance Company is that the insured is a pillion rider and a gratuitous passenger and therefore, he is not covered under the policy conditions, in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (2) KLT 884). The above decision pertains to coverage of a pillion rider in an Act policy. In this case, the vehicle involved was covered under a comprehensive policy. It is true that coverage of insurance is decided on the basis of the terms of the insurance policy. Act policy covers only statutory liability like third party risks. But, with regard to coverage of other risk in a comprehensive policy, the matter will depend upon MACA 1271/08 2 the terms of the policy. In the policy in question Clause (1) of Section II of the terms of policy reads as follows: “1. 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 or bodily injury to any person including person conveyed in or on the motor cycle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward. ii) damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust by or in the custody or control of the insured or any member of the insured's household or being conveyed by the motor cycle.” (emphasis supplied). MACA 1271/08 3 Therefore, it clearly states that persons carried in the motor vehicle is covered, if he is not carried for hire or reward. In this case the pillion rider is covered in terms of the policy and Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 2. It is also contended by the counsel that considering the premium paid and front portion of the policy, a pillion rider is not covered. The Insurance Company is governed by the conditions of contract in the policy as decided by the Constitutional Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M.Jaya (AIR 2002 SC 651) and in Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar ((1998) 3 SCC 744). If there is any ambiguity on the terms of the insurance policy, one that is beneficial to the insured should be accepted against the party who prepared the policy as held by the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s.Pushpalaya Printers (AIR 2004 SC MACA 1271/08 4 1700). The conditions of contract, including the conditions of policy, are accepted by both sides. Insurer is bound by the conditions of policy. Insurance Company cannot contend against its own policy conditions. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is, hence, dismissed. (J.B.Koshy, Judge) 6th August,2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv