IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 2112 of 2009() ----------------------------------- OPMV.1716/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., METRO PALACE, GROUND FLOOR, OPP.NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. BY ADV.MR.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 &2 ------------------------- 1. MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O.MOIDU, PUZHAMKANDATHUL HOUSE, VETTANCHERRY, PERUMPADAPPU. 2. T.K.IBRAHIM, S/O.BAPPU, THAIPARAMBIL HOTTILINGAL HOUSE, P.O.MARANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. RAFEEQ, S/O.SAINUDEEN, PUZHAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, VETTANCHERRY, PERUMPADAPPU. R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.C.A.CHACKO THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. 2455/2009 IN MACA. NO.2112/2009 CLOSED 01/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2112 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in OP.(M.V.)No.1716/2002. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.50,300/= and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. Dissatisfied with the same, the insurance company has come up in appeal contending that the Tribunal has gone wrong in affixing the liability on the insurance company. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the owner and the driver. Admittedly the policy is only an Act only policy. The Tribunal has extended the liability on the ground that since premium is paid for unlimited coverage of the third party property damage, it will amount to extension of premium paid to a pillion rider travelling in a two wheeler. The said approach of the Tribunal is incorrect. By virtue of a clarificatory circular issued by the Insurance : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2112 OF 2009 Regulatory Development Authority dated 16.11.2009, it has been clarified that passengers travelling in a private car and persons travelling in a two wheeler are covered under the terms and conditions of the standard motor package policy. It is covered for the reason that there is a condition wherein the insurance company has undertaken to indemnify in case of death or injury caused to persons carried in vehicles other than for hire or reward. So, it is the clause including any person carried other than for hire or reward makes the policy to cover the liability of a pillion rider. 3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC) has made it very clear that a person travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler covered by an Act only policy is only having the status of a gratuitous passenger and not the third person. Just because additional premium is paid in an act policy to cover the risk of unlimited coverage of third party property risk it will not cover the risk of a pillion rider travelling in a two wheeler. Therefore : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.2112 OF 2009 the Tribunal has committed a serious error which requires correction and therefore the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company is bound to pay the amount is liable to be set aside and I do so. 4. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company is bound to pay the amount is set aside and it is exonerated from the liability. But it is made clear that the claimant can proceed against respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition for realisation of the amount. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.2112 OF 2009