IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 235 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.476/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI - 35. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. JOSEPH THOMAS @ JOY THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, KUZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, MANGALAGIRI BHAGOM, TEEKOY KARA & VILLAGE. 2. DENOY, S/O.MATHEW, KAVALMACKAL, MANGALAGIRI KARA, TEEKOY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DIST. 3. JIJI MOL JACOB, KUNNEL HOUSE, TEEKOY P.O., TEEKOY KARA, TEEKOY TOWN BHAGOM, KOTTAYAM DIST. ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 235 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala, in OP(MV) 476/04. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a total compensation of Rs.71,490/-. Aggrieved by that decision, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. The contention of the Insurance Company is to the effect that no additional premium has been collected for a wider coverage of a pillion rider and therefore in the light of the dictum laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (4) SCC 404] , the Insurance Company is not bound to pay the amount. The Tribunal on consideration of the terms and conditions of the policy held that there is an undertaking to cover the risk of a person carried in a motor cycle. This has been extracted in para.9 as follows: “Thus under section 11(1)(a) of the policy the insurer has agreed to indemnify the insured against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death or bodily injury to 'any person'. The expression 'any person' would undoubtedly include any occupants of the car who is MACA No. 235/08 2 gratuitously travelling in the car. The remaining part of clause (a) relates to cases of death or injury arising out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured. In such cases, the liability of the insurer is only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of section 95 of the Act. In so far as gratuitously passengers are concerned there is no limitation in the policy as such. Hence, under the terms of the policy, the insurer is liable to satisfy the award passed in favour of the claimant. We are unable to agree with the view expressed by the High Court in this case as the terms of the policy are unambiguous.” 3. The very same clause came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and Others [2008 (3) KHC 522] held that when there is a condition in the contract to cover a person who is being carried in the motor vehicle except for hire or reward, the Insurance Company is bound to pay the amount. So in the light of the said decision and as per the terms of the conditions of the policy covers the risk of a pillion rider, the award does not call for any interference. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 235/08 3