IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 1419 of 2008(A) ---------------------------------- OPMV.1875/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3 ---------------------------------------- M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOCHI, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU SUKUMARAN, ARICKATTU HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. MANOJ KUMAR, KIZHAKKEPURACKAL, MARIAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. MATHEW ALIAS MOTTOY, ELLUKALAYIL, MOOLEDAM, PUNNACKAL, KOTTAYAM. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1419 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)1875/03. The claimant was a pillion rider in a private car. He sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.36,000/-. The insurance company has come in appeal. 2. The contention is to the effect that being a passenger in a private car and having not paid any additional premium his status is that of a gratuitous passenger and therefore he is not covered by the policy and therefore the Tribunal has erroneously decided that issue. 3. I have perused the award. Paragraph 18 of he award deals with the question involved in this appeal. Ext.B1 is the policy. It is a Motor B policy. It is specifically extracted that S.II 1 (i) of the terms and conditions would clearly show that the policy covers the risk in respect of M.A.C.A. 1419 OF 2008 -:2:- 'death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward)'. The Tribunal held that nobody has got a case that the petitioner was travelling in a private car for hire or reward. Now, this position has been covered by a Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose [2008 (3) KHC 522(DB). The very same clause came up before the Division Bench for interpretation and the Division Bench has held that those terms and conditions of the policy covers the risk of a passenger travelling in the vehicle. Therefore in the light of this decision the finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference and hence the appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-