IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 2321 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.193/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND IST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.KUTTAN PANICKER, RAMAVILASAM VEEDU, MALAYIKADA, MANCHIVILAKOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. NISSAR, S/O. MOHAMMED KASIM, PUTHUVAL, AYINKAMAM, PARASSALA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDERON I.A.NO.2765/2008 IN MACA.NO.2321/2008 DISMISSED 22.12.2009 SD/= M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. cl M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2321 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in OP(MV)No.193/2003. The claimant sustained injuries while he was travelling in a private jeep. The Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.10,250/=with 7.5% interest. It also made the insurance company liable. 2. The insurance company has challenged its liability on the ground that the policy does not cover the risk of a person travelling in a private car. There is no dispute that the vehicle is covered by a standard motor package policy. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority by its circular dated 16..11.2009 had clarified that persons taken in a private car and a pillion rider on a two wheeler are covered by the terms of the standard motor package policy. The conditions of the package policy had come up for consideration before the two Division Benches of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2321 OF 2008 (3) KLT 778) and in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). In both these decisions, the Division Benches have taken the view that the terms and conditions of the policy cover the risk of the persons and so no additional premium is necessary. 3. In the light of the clarificatory circular coupled with the two authoritative decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, the insurance company is bound to pay the amount. I cannot find fault with the order passed by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl