IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 53 of 2009() ------------------------- OPMV.852/2002 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................. APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN OP(MV) 852/02 ---------------------------------------------------- XAVIER ALIAS XAVIER ANSON,S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 33, PLASSERY(H),MARADU DESOM,MARADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI MR.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO:3 IN O.P.(MV)852/02 ---------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD D.O.3,JOS TRUST BUILDING, P.B.NO.3644, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-682035. ADV. MR.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR R THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No. 53 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the award of the claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P(M.V)No.852/2002. The claimant, a pillion rider, while traveling sustained injuries in a road accident and the tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.30,999/- and exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability and directed respondents 1 and 2 to pay the amount. It is against the exoneration of liability of the Insurance Company, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. The learned tribunal had exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that no additional premium has been collected to cover the risk of the pillion rider. Admittedly, the vehicle is covered by a package policy, which is described as 'B policy'. Now the terms and M.A.C.A. No. 53 OF 2009 2 conditions of a package policy is that as per Section II(1) (i) of Motor Vehicle Act, subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the schedule thereto, the company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against, of sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in a vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward), but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, the company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured. This clause has come up for consideration before the two Division Benches of this Court reported in (2008 (3) KLT 778 and 2009 (3) KLT 813, that is new India Assurance Company Vs. Hydrose and another and Mathew Vs. Shaji Mathew). In the Hydrose's case the Court was considering the clause where M.A.C.A. No. 53 OF 2009 3 “but except, so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act” was not there. In that case the Court held that by virtue of the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurer has undertaken to wipe off the liability of the insured and therefore held that no additional premium is necessary for the coverage of the pillion rider. In the other case, an additional clause was also considered and the Division Bench held that the benefit conferred in the Hydrose case has to be extended to such type of policies as well. 3. Therefore by virtue of the decisions it has to be held that the Insurance Company is liable. Now over and above these, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority had issued a clarificatory circular, on these conditions in the motor package policy. As per the said circular “the above circulars make it clear that the insurer's liability in respect of occupants carried in a private car and pillion rider carried on M.A.C.A. No. 53 OF 2009 4 two wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy”. Therefore by virtue of the clarificatory circular also the Insurance Company cannot get exonerated from the liability. In view of the discussions, the award of the tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability is incorrect and is liable to be set aside and I do so. The Insurance Company is made liable. 4. Therefore, the M.A.C.A is allowed and the finding of exoneration of liability of the Insurance Company is set aside and the Insurance Company is made liable to pay the amount awarded. The Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. Appeal disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /ss/