IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 878 of 2009() --------------------------------- OPMV.1554/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SHEELA, AGED 33 YEARS,W/O.NINAN.K.JOSEPH, KOVOOR HOUSE,THOTTABHAGAM.PO,THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. MR. K.SHAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH.C.VARGHESE,CHIRATHALATTU HOUSE, ITHITHANAM.PO.,CHANGANACHERRY. 2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD,KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.878 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in OP(MV)No.1554/2000. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded her a compensation of Rs.43,400/=. The Tribunal has also exonerated the insurance company from the liability on the ground that the policy does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. It is challenging the quantum as well as exoneration of the liability of the insurance company, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel. So far as the quantum is concerned there is a definite methodology to work out the compensation as is provided under schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal fixed the income at Rs.1,800/= and in the absence of any concrete materials, this Court in appeal cannot challenge the same. Therefore, I decline to interfere with the quantum. : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.878 OF 2009 3. So far as the liability is concerned, it is true that in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Swaran Singh [2004 (1) KLT 781 (SC)], the defence of non liability is available to the insurance company as per para 102 (ii) of the said decision. 4. Now the question to be considered is whether the policy covers the risk of a pillion rider. The learned Tribunal has referred to various decisions and held that just because the policy is a comprehensive policy, it will not cover the risk of a pillion rider unless additional premium is paid. In that aspect, the attempted theory was that status of a pillion rider in a two wheeler is that of a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy. But the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority by virtue of a clarificatory circular issued on 16.11.2009 had made it clear that the persons travelling in a private car and pillion riders carried in a two wheeler are covered by the terms and conditions of the standard motor package policy. Further, the conditions embodied in such policy had come : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.878 OF 2009 up for consideration before the two Division Benches of this Court in the decisions reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose ( 2003 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). The condition embodied is with respect to the coverage of persons in respect of death or bodily injuries carried in a Motor Vehicle other than for hire or reward. The Division Benches held that conditions of the policy itself will cover the risk of such persons and no additional premium is necessary. Therefore in the light of the clarificatory circular issued by the authority coupled with the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, it has to be held that the insurance company is liable and therefore the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company has to be exonerated from the liability is set aside and it is made liable. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and exoneration of the insurance company from the liability is set aside and it is made liable to pay the amount. The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.878 OF 2009 Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : M.A.C.A.No.878 OF 2009