IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 2180 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.1176/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN OPMV :- ------------------------------------------------------- GIGO MATHEW @ GIGO, S/O. LATE CHELAKKATTU MATHEW, KADUKUTTY DESOM, KALLUR VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, KADUKUTTY.P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :- ------------------------------------------------ 1. K.L. JOSE, KOONAMMAVU HOUSE, KORIMBASSERY, IRINJALAKUDA.P.O. 2. SANTHOSH, S/O. KONAKKASSERY RAMANKUTTY, THANISSERY.P.O, IRINJALAKUDA. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MAIN ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA.P.O. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ---------------------- M.A.C.A. No.2180 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June 2010 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV) No.1176 of 2003. The claimant was a pillion rider in a two wheeler, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal was awarded him a compensation of Rs.43,200/- with 7% interest. The Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from the liability. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Let me first consider about the enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal did not accept disability certificate for want of examination of the claimant as well as the doctor and it is also stated that the doctor had issued the certificate mainly on the ground of representation made M.A.C.A. No.2180 of 2008 : 2 : by the claimant. A perusal of the award would reveal that the claimant sustained a blunt injury in the abdomen with hemoperitoneum and mesentric tear. The Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation to the injury sustained. But it requires some enhancement for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Considering the nature of injuries, I enhance the compensation of pain and suffering by Rs.2,000/- and loss of amenities by Rs.3,000/- making an additional compensation of Rs.5,000/-. 3. The main contention is regarding the exoneration of liability of the insurance company. Admittedly, the vehicle was covered by a comprehensive policy. The Tribunal held that since no additional premium is paid, the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay the amount. Now by virtue of the clarificatory circular issued by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, it is clarified that persons travelling in a two wheeler and passenger carried in a private vehicle are covered by the M.A.C.A. No.2180 of 2008 : 3 : terms and conditions of the Standard Motor Package Policy. It is also clarified by the two decisions of this Court reported in 2008(3)KLT 778 (New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Hydrose) and 2009(3)KLT 813 (Mathew v. Shaji Mathew). Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company is not liable for the amount is to be set aside and it is to be made liable. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the claimant awarded an additional compensation of Rs.5,000/- with 7% interest to the said sum. It is also made clear that the insurance company is liable to pay entire amount inclusive of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The insurance company shall deposit these amounts within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Jvt