IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 1862 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.845/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ JOY.M.V, S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 39, MAROTTIKUDY HOUSE, THATTAMPADY, KANJOOR.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.GOPAKUMAR.G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3 ------------------------------ NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ALUVA. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1862 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Basheer, J. The appellant, while traveling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler, met with an accident and sustained some injuries. He filed a claim petition before the Tribunal contending that respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him. 2. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the petitioner was entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,41,080/- towards compensation. Further, since it was noticed that the two wheeler was having only an “Act Only Policy”, the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company and directed the owner and rider of the two wheeler to pay the compensation to the appellant. The above order is under challenge in this appeal. M.A.C.A.No.1862/2008 2 3. When the appeal is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that the policy being an 'Act only Policy', the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. As rightly noticed by the Tribunal, no additional premium was paid for the pillion rider. Therefore, the contention raised by the Insurance Company that it was not liable to indemnify the owner ws accepted by the Tribunal. We do not find any reason to take a different view. Therefore, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ps