IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 2347 of 2007() ---------------------------------- OPMV.929/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND IST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAMMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, VATTATHARA HOUSE, MANATTUPARAMBU, NARAKKAL, NOW RESIDING AT CHAKKALA PARAMBIL, NETTOOR P.O. 2. AJITH KUMAR, S/O.LATE RAMAN, CHAKKALAPARAMBIL, NETTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.3091/2007 IN MACA.NO.2347/2007 DISMISSED 19/06/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 2347 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, in OP(MV) 929/02. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.21,350/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount with a right for recovery. The Tribunal also found that the Insurance Company has not received any premium for the coverage of the pillion rider and as such the company is not liable to compensate the petitioner. The Tribunal also entered into a finding that since no premium has been paid by the owner for coverage of a pillion rider, the 2nd respondent is not liable to compensate the petitioner and the 1st respondent alone is liable for the same. When the Tribunal has entered into a definite finding that the policy does not cover the risk of a person who was travelling as a pillion rider as per the contract, then the question of directing the company to pay the amount and get it reimbursed does not arise. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh [2004 (1) KLT 781 (SC] the Apex court held that when it relates to a third party and a person who drives the vehicle without a valid driving licence, it is the breach of policy conditions so far as it relates to the insurer and insured. Therefore, the third party who is MACA No.2347/07 2 involved cannot be made to suffer and hence directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and recover it from the owner. But this is a case where there is no policy coverage at all for the pillion rider who has got the status of a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the question of directing the company to pay first and get it reimbursed from the owner does not arise at all for consideration and it should not be done. Further it has to be held that a pillion rider is not a third party and hence the Tribunal has erred in directing the Insurance Company liable to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the owner. Therefore, the award under challenge is partly set aside. The direction of the Tribunal to pay the amount by the Insurance Company is set aside. It is made clear that the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay the amount and the claimant can recover it from him in accordance with law. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.2347/07 3 MACA No.2347/07 4