IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 408 of 2007() -------------------------------- OPMV.428/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP.BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD,KOCHI-11. BY ADV. MR.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,3,4 & SUPPL. 5TH RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SULAIMAN,S/O.HASSAN,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PARAMBIL HOUSE,NEAR T.B HOSPITAL,PONNANI P.O. 2. SHAMSUDHEEN,S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY,THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE,AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,PONNANI. 3. ABDUL RAHIM,S/O.HAMZA,AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS KOTTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,THIRUNAVAYA P.O, 4. N.HASKAR,S/O.AZEEZ,NALAKATH HOUSE, VAIRANKODE P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, CKH BUILDING THAZHEPALAM,TIRUR. R5 BY ADV. MR.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA). THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO.408 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of March, 2007 JUDGMENT Second respondent insurance company in O.P.(MV) No.428/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur is the appellant. Appeal is filed against the award passed by the Tribunal making the appellant liable for the compensation awarded. Appellant is the insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KL 10 J 6348 in which the first respondent was travelling as a pillion rider. When the motor cycle reached the place of occurrence it hit against an autorickshaw which came from the opposite side. First respondent sustained injuries. He filed claim petition impleading owners, drivers and insurance companies of both the vehicles. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent in the claim petition who was the owner/driver of the motor cycle and held that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- and the insurer is liable to pay compensation. 2. Appellant produced Ext.B1 policy and disputed its liability on the ground that Ext.B1 policy does not cover pillion rider and it is only a third party policy. Apart from producing the policy the appellant did not adduce any oral evidence to substantiate its contentions. Tribunal after verifying Ext.B1 policy found that it was a two wheeler package policy and under Clause 1(i) of Section II of the terms and conditions of the policy the insurance company has stated that M.A.C.A.NO.408/2007 -: 2 :- the insurance company will indemnify the insured against all sums which the insured shall legally liable to pay in respect of bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the insured vehicle. According to the appellant the word `legally' is important as the policy does not cover a pillion rider and the company is not liable to pay compensation to the injury caused to a pillion rider as no additional premium is collected. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised a contention that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation as stated in the decisions reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh ((2006) 4 SCC 404), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rukiya (2006 (4) KLT 192) , Mathew Joseph v. Janaki (2007 (1) KLT 747 (FB)) and Radhakrishna Panicker v. State of Kerala (2001 (3)KLT 631). 3. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the insurance company cannot be allowed to raise such a contention. It is to be noted that the terms and conditions are printed and party has no option at the time of taking policy. So the contention is without merit and it is only to escape from the liability. There is no merit in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, M.A.C.A. is dismissed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR JUDGE cks