IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1381 of 2008() ---------------------------------- OPMV.931/2003 of ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... 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 SRI.RAJI T.BHASKER SMT.UMARANI M.N. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PONNAMMA PETER, W/O.PETER AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AMALKUNNEL HOUSE, KUZHIPPURAYIDOMKARA, MANARCADU VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT NO.8, POLICE QUARTERS, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. PETER A.C., S/O.A.M.CHAKO NO.8, POLICE QUARTERS CHANGANACHERRY. ADV. SRI.K.A.HASHIM FOR R1 ADV. SRI.SHYAM T.MATHEW FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA. NO.1381/2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO.1646/2008 IN MACA NO.1381/2008 DISMISSED 04/12/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1381 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV) No.931/2003. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 46,750/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. Their contention is to the effect that being a pillion rider and no additional premium is paid, the policy does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. Admittedly the policy issued is a comprehensive policy. In comprehensive policy, there is a condition under Section II(1)(i) which covers the risk of a person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. This clause came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008 (3) KHC 522] . The Division Bench held that since the conditions of the policy covers the risk of a person carried in a motor vehicle, the Insurance Company by virtue of the terms of the contract cannot get exonerated from the M.A.C.A.No. 1381/2008 -2- liability. In the light of the said decision and also on the basis of the policy conditions, I hold that the Insurance Company is bound to pay the amount. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and accordingly it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm