Point of Law: Accident – Insurance liability - there in that a `limited liability policy' or a `statutory policy' only covers death or bodily injury of a third party falling within the purview of Section 147 of the Act. In such cases, the Insurer is not liable to compensate a `gratuitous passenger' not covered by the policy.

JUDGMENT :

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. The 2nd respondent/insurance company before the Tribunal, who indemnified the original 1st respondent who is the owner of the vehicle viz. scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-04/D-6454, has preferred this appeal challenging the award dated 12.01.2012 in O.P(MV) No.349 of 2007 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha.

2. The respondents herein are the original petitioner as well as the 1st respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case :

The 1st respondent/petitioner, who was aged 43 years at the time of accident, claiming to be Proprietor-cum-Worker of a mobile tea shop at Kottayam earning monthly income of Rs.5,000/-u/s 166 of the MV Act, 1988 (as amended 1994) and r/w Rule 371 of the KMV Rules 1989, had filed the original petition for grant of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-for the injuries sustained by him in the Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 18.07.05 at about 6.15 a.m at the north of KPMUP School on Alappuzha-Thaneermukkom road while he was travelling as the pillion on the scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-04/D-6454 insured with second respondent owned and driven by the 1st respondent from south to north in a rash and negligent manner taking a sudden deep turn towards left side causing the petitioner forcibly to fall down on the road.

4. The Tribunal adjudicated the claim based on evidence and finally granted Rs.31,350/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum, with direction to pay the same by the insurer/appellant insurer.

5. The specific contention raised by the appellant/insurance company is that the policy issued in relation to the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-04/D-6454 involved in the accident does not have valid policy to cover risk of a pillion rider. The learned counsel for the appellant/2nd respondent zealously argued that Ext.B1 policy admittedly issued by the insurance company in favour of the owner of the vehicle is a `statutory policy' covering the risk of third parties alone. But the Tribunal negatived the contention mainly relying on the fact that Rs.16/-was collected under the head “extra loading’. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted further that the Tribunal misunder stood collection of Rs.16/-under the head `extra loading’ as premium to cover risk of a pillion rider.

6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent herein/1st respondent in O.P(MV) as well as the 1st respondent herein/the petitioner in O.P(MV) supported the verdict of the Tribunal. However, they failed to substantiate entitlement of compensation under Ext.B1 policy.

7. In this context, 2 questions are, in fact, required to be answered;

(i) whether liability only policy issued by the insurer would cover the risk of a pillion rider? & (ii) what is meant by `extra loading’ stated in Ext.B1 policy?

8. While answering the first question, I am inclined to rely on decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC)] which was highlighted by the learned counsel for the insurance company. In this decision, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the insurance company owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory one. In another decision of this Court reported in Mathew Joseph v. Janaki [2007(1) KHC 521], also it was held that gratuitous passengers in transport vehicles including a motor cycle, can have coverage only when a comprehensive policy or extended policy as might be possible to be issued, has been availed of by the owner of the vehicle. In fact, all the above decisions followed the ratio of the three Bench decision reported in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Ors. [2003(1) KLT 165 (SC)].

9. In the decision reported in Francis K.T v. Sabu Augustine and anr. [2015 (5) KHC 320] a Division Bench of this Court held that comprehensive policy only would cover the risk of a pillion rider. This legal position has been reiterated in the decision reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran [2008