IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 2024 of 2008(F) ------------------------------- OPMV.184/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- NARAYANAN, S/O.PERUMPILLY PARAMESWARAN NAIR, VALLAPPADI DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH, S/O.PANAMPILLY SATHIRATNAM, KATHIKUDAM DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. INDIRA SREEKUMAR, PUDUSSERY HOUSE, MATTATHURKUNNU P.O., MOOLAMKUDAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, CITY HEIGHTS BUILDING, CHALAKUDY. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2024 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)184/03. The claimant, a pillion rider sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.34,600/- and exonerated the insurance company from the liability on the ground that the policy does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. There is also a challenge regarding the quantum of compensation. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. A perusal of the award, especially paragraph 6, would reveal that the claimant had sustained a comminuted fracture of the wrist. Though the disability certificate did show 13% disability the court did not accept it for the reason that it has not been proved. But the court proceeded to award a compensation on other grounds as well. It granted the entire compensation for the medical expenses and M.A.C.A. 2024 OF 2008 -:2:- Rs.12,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.4,000/- towards discomfort and loss of amenities. The court also granted two months income at the rate of Rs.2,000/- as the actual loss of income. So it is seen that the court has considered the matter correctly and arrived at a proper figure regarding the compensation. 3. The next question is regarding the insurance company's liability. Admittedly the vehicle was covered by a comprehensive policy. A comprehensive policy, in ordinary parlance, means a third party coverage plus own damage risk. When additional coverage is there additional premium is collected and then only it makes the insurance company liable for the said acts or deeds. It has been held in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh)2006 (2) KLT 884(SC) that a pillion rider is not a third party and his status utmost will amount to that of a gratuitous passenger who is not covered by an Act only policy. Just because additional premium is paid for the purpose of covering the damage to the property it will not M.A.C.A. 2024 OF 2008 -:3:- change the characteristic of liability unless additional premium is paid for the coverage of a person travelling as a pillion rider in a motor vehicle. It is being a settled position of law I cannot find fault with the learned Tribunal for arriving at a decision that the policy does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. So from these discussions I hold that the Tribunal has only arrived at a proper decision so far as it relates to the quantum as well as the liability is concerned. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-