IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 1030 of 2009() ------------------------------------ OPMV.551/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN OP(MV) ----------------------- SHABIN.K., S/O.KUNHU MOHAMMED, AGED 26 YEARS, AMAL HOUSE, PERUVAYAL P.O., MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS.MR.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN OP(MV) ----------------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH.V., 4/207, UNDOIYIL HOUSE, PERUVAYAL POST, KOZHIKODE. 2. SHAJU MEERAN, S/O MOHAMMED, HAZEENA MANZIL, POOVATTUPARAMBA POST, PERUVAYAL AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.811, NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, NEAR ARAYIDATHUPALAM, KOZHIKODE. R3 BY MR.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.P.JACOB MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.1030 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in OP(MV)No.551/2004. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.14,000/= and the insurance company has been exonerated from the liability. The challenge against the award are; one is regarding the quantum and the other is regarding exoneration of the liability. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that the vehicle is covered by a comprehensive policy and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, it will cover the risk of a pillion rider and therefore, the insurance company is not entitled to be exonerated from the liability. Unfortunately, neither the insurance company nor the claimant did produce copy of the policy condition and therefore, the Tribunal was not in a position to answer the same. In the light of the decisions reported in : 2 : M.A.C.A. No. 1030 OF 2009 New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778 and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813), if there are policy conditions, then irrespective of the question whether premium is paid or not, the insurance company is bound to indemnify. So, it is a matter that requires consideration at the hands of the Tribunal. Since the matter has to go back, I am not dealing with the question of quantum here and direct the Tribunal to reconsider it. 3. In the result, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal and the parties are permitted to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the matter be disposed of in accordance with law afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8.12.2009. Disposed of accordingly M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.A.C.A. No. 1030 OF 2009 : 4 : M.A.C.A. No. 1030 OF 2009