IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 1493 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.324/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------ M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 --------------------------- 1. SUMESH, KAVANAMUZHIYIL HOUSE, MURIYIDOM, KIDANGOOR. 2. AJITHKUMAR, KAITHACKAL HOUSE, VELLILAPPALLY, MUTHOLY P.O. 3. GOPALAKRISHNAN, MANDAPATHIL, VALLICHIRA KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE. R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.C.A.CHACKO THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO 1758/2008 IN MACA. NO.1493/2008 DISMISSED 12/10/2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1493 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Pala in OP(MV)No.324/2006. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident for which the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.28,100/= and directed the insurance company to deposit the amount. The insurance company contended that though it is a package policy it does not cover the risk of a pillion rider for the reason that no additional premium is collected for the same. The Tribunal took note of the situation that the conditions of the policy are not produced before the court and therefore, it drew an adverse inference and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal. The learned counsel for the insurance company has made available before me the terms and conditions of the package policy. Under Section 2(1)(i) it is stated that death of or : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1493 OF 2008 bodily injury to any person including the occupants carried in the 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 very same clause came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813) and it was held that just because of an extended clause, the benefit conferred by the decision in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) cannot be denied to the party. Therefore in the light of the decisions in Mathew's case, the insurance company is bound to pay the amount and therefore, the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1493 OF 2008