IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 1521 of 2008() ----------------------------------- OPMV.1802/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S):2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REP. BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI - 11. BY MR.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. MR.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & IST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY. --------------------------- 1. M.M.JOHN, S/O.M.K.MATHEW, MALIKAYIL VEEDU, C.M.S.QUARTERS, KALAVAMKODAM P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. MATHEW JACOB, S/O.P.I.JACOB, KOCHUPILACKAL, MALLAPPALLY EAST P.O., MALLAPPALLY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1521 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in OP (MV)No.1802/2001. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.20,000/= and negatived the contention of the insurance company that it is not bound to indemnify but granted them the right of recovery in the absence of driving licence for the rider. It is against that, the insurance company has come up in appeal. The point canvassed is on the basis of the rulings in Tilak Sing's case that it was a case where there was only an act only policy and therefore the Supreme Court held that the status of a pillion rider is not that of a third party but only of a gratuitous passenger and therefore the policy does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. But so far as this case is concerned, the policy issued is a comprehensive policy. Comprehensive policies are normally followed by certain conditions and one of the conditions we : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1521 OF 2008 find under Section 2(i) is that the persons who are taken in motor cycle other than for hire or reward is also covered by the policy. Subsequent to 2001, there was an incorporation of a sentence except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Cycle Act. Both these clauses have been the subject matter of consideration before this Court by two Division Benches. So far as the first point is concerned in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) this Court held that by virtue of the conditions of the policy itself, the said person is covered and therefore, there is no necessity to pay additional premium. Then another Division Bench of this Court had the opportunity to consider the incorporated clause of except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813) held that just because such an incorporation is there the right of the insured cannot be defeated and it extended the principle and dictum laid down in Hydrose's case in such policy also. So, in the light of the judicial pronouncements, : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1521 OF 2008 when there is a comprehensive policy with a condition of this nature, the insurance company is bound to indemnify the insured in the case of a pillion rider as well. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the Tribunal for fixing the liability on the insurance company. So far as the right to recovery is concerned, the Tribunal was justified and it was held that there was no driving licence and therefore the right to recovery is there. Therefore, I find no ground to entertain the appeal and the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl