IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 1599 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.569/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: --------------------------------- VINOJ, S/O GOPALAN, NJANOOR PARAMBU, KARUMALOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS : ----------------------------------------- 1. ANVAR SADIK, S/O HYDROSE, 13/315, MUTHIRA PARAMPU, THARIKAPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, KAIYHARAM P.O. KOTTUVALLY. 2. ISMAIL.K.K. S/O KUNJABDULLA, NADAYIL HOUSE, VEDIMARA, N. PARAVUR. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, PATTAMANA BUILDING, R.S. ROAD, ALUVA. ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1599 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P.(MV)569/03. The claimant, a pillion rider to a vehicle sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.13,000/- and exonerated the insurance company and directed respondents 1 and 2 to pay the amount. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal challenging the quantum as well as exoneration of the insurance company from the liability. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. The Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from the liability on the ground that the policy is a comprehensive policy and as no additional premium is paid to cover the risk of a pillion rider the policy does not cover the risk of a pillion rider in a vehicle. It is true. But whether the payment of additional premium itself is necessary or not if there are conditions M.A.C.A. 1599 OF 2009 -:2:- attached to the policy was considered by two Division Benches of this Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In those cases there were conditions of policy in a comprehensive one with clause II(i) covering the risk of a person carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. So if there are specific contract between the insurance company and the insurer then the contract will prevail and in such circumstances there may not be any necessity for additional premium to be collected to cover the risk of pillion rider. But unfortunately policy conditions were not produced before the Tribunal and therefore it did not have the opportunity to consider those questions. So necessarily the matter has to go back as the matter requires consideration on that point. Since the matter is being remitted I also leave open the quantum of compensation to be decided for which purpose also materials can be produced before Court. M.A.C.A. 1599 OF 2009 -:3:- In the result MACA is partly allowed and the award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the question of liability of the insurance company as well as adequacy of compensation. For the said purpose parties are permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law as on the date of decision. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 2.12.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-