IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 190 of 2007() ---------------------------------- OPMV.2091/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P.CELL, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4 RESPECTIVELY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMESHAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM, VAIKOM. 2. JOSE, MANNULLY HOUSE, AKG ROAD, THEKKUMBHAGAM, THRIPUNITHURA. 3. DEEPU K.S., S/O. RAJAPPAN, POTTANAD HOUSE, THRIKALATHOOR, MULAVOOR VILLAGE. 4. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL, SRI.SANU MATHEW, SRI.M.B.SANDEEP, SMT.RAZEENA.P.T. R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.190 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in OP(MV)No.2091/2001. The claimant, a passenger in a private jeep, sustained injuries in a road accident and he had claimed compensation. First respondent in the original petition is the owner, 2nd respondent is the driver and 3rd respondent is the insurance company of the jeep. The court found that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep and awarded a compensation of Rs.27,000/= with a direction to the 3rd respondent to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the insurance company and respondents Nos.1 and 4 in the appeal. The short point that arises for determination is regarding the coverage of the jeep. The jeep is covered by an Act only policy. In the case reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006(2) KLT 884 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.190 OF 2007 has made it clear that any person mentioned does not refer to a passenger in a private vehicle or a pillion rider in a two wheeler. When it is so, the terms and conditions of the policy does not cover the risk of passengers carried in a private vehicle. Had it been a package policy, certainly by virtue of the clarificatory circular and the following decisions, the position would have been different. Here being an Act only policy and following the dictums in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006(2) KLT 884 (SC), it has to be held that status of the persons are that of gratuitous passengers and therefore, they are not covered by the insurance policy. 3. Therefore finding of the Tribunal to the contra is set aside and the appellant/National Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability and the claimant is at liberty to proceed against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the claim petition jointly and severally for realisation of the amount. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.190 OF 2007 : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.190 OF 2007