IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 1016 of 2007(C) ----------------------- OPMV.1466/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI -11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & RESPTS.1 & 2 AND ADDL.RESPTS.4 & 5 RESPECTIVELY: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.C.MARKOSE, S/O CHACKO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, VETTIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KAKKOOR P.O., THIRUMARADY. 2. SAMSON M.MICHEL, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM P.O. 3. JENNY MARKOSE, S/O MARKOSE, VETTIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KAKKOOR P.O., THIRUMARADY. 4. P.P.MARKOSE, S/O PHILIPOSE, PULPARAYIL HOUSE, MANNATHOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA. ADVS. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN FOR R.2 SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. 1016/2007 ORDER ON I.A.NO. 1166/2007 IN M.A.C.A.NO. 1016/2007 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. 6/10/2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1016 OF 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV) No. 1466/2002. The claimant was a pillion rider in a bike bearing registration No. KL-7/4288. The said vehicle collided with another motor bike bearing registration No. KL-7S/5586 as a result of which the pillion rider travelling in the said vehicle died and the claimant in O.P. 1466 who was the pillion rider of KL-7/4288 sustained injuries. The Tribunal after elaborately considering the matter found that the accident took place on account of the negligence of rider of KL-7/4288 and awarded compensation. The Tribunal properly did not consider the question that the claimant therein was a pillion rider in a vehicle which was covered only by an Act only policy. It is against that decision, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent strongly contends before me that the said person had disposed of the M.A.C.A. No. 1016/2007 -2- vehicle as early as in 1991 and therefore he cannot be made liable. It has to be stated that this owner did not enter appearance before the Tribunal nor filed a written statement. He did not file any appeal or even a cross objection contending that he is not the owner of the vehicle. Therefore this argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted at this stage of the case. 3. Now let me consider about the liability of the Insurance company. The Insurance Company has produced the policy and it is marked as Ext. B1 before the Tribunal. The learned counsel had also made available before me for perusal a copy of the said policy. Caption of the said policy would really indicate that it is only Act only policy. By virtue of the said policy a premium of Rs. 77/- for third party and additional coverage of third party damage is also taken. It is not a policy which comes under the terms of comprehensive or package but it is an Act only Policy alone. When it is a comprehensive policy or package policy we find in some policies a condition whereby the pillion rider is covered by the conditions of the policy though separate premium is not received or paid. But in an Act only policy it is only the third party coverage and no coverage for a pillion rider. This position M.A.C.A. No. 1016/2007 -3- has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Sigh [2006 (4) SCC 404]. The apex Court held that when premium is not paid just like a passenger in a private vehicle the status of the person would be that of a gratuitous passenger and therefore that person is not covered by the policy. Therefore I sustain the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and hold that pillion rider of the vehicle involved in this case is not covered by the Ext. B1 policy. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal fixing the liability of the Insurance Company is set aside and it is totally exonerated from the liability. Therefore the appeal is allowed and Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability and the claimants are entitled to receive the amount from respondents 1 and 2 in the claim application jointly and severally. M.A.C.A is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm