Personal Accident Coverage under Motor Vehicle Policy is applicable to the insured, with the court affirming prior judgments supporting the claimants’ position.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, an Insurance Company, challenging Exhibit-P3 order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Thiruvananthapuram. As per the said order, the original petition submitted by the respondents 1 to 3 herein was allowed, by extending the benefit of Personal Accident Coverage provided by the petitioner in the Motor Vehicle Policy issued.

2. The grievances highlighted by the respondents 1 to

3 were regarding the repudiation of a claim made by them, based on the Personal Accident Coverage in the Motor Vehicle Policy. The issue related to an accident occurred on 28.06.2024, wherein, the son of the respondents 1 and 2 died. The accident occurred when the motor cycle which stood registered in the name of the 1st respondent, and was being ridden by the deceased met with an accident and consequent to the injuries sustained, he died. The respondents 1 to 3 raised a claim based on the Personal Accident Coverage in the policy issued in respect of the said vehicle, but the same was rejected by the petitioner, on the ground that the said coverage for Personal Accident is exclusively for the owner cum driver and the same cannot be extended to any other person who is not the registered owner or insured of the vehicle.

3. Challenging the repudiation, original petition was filed, and that ultimately culminated in Exhibit-P3, in which, the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, after relying upon various decisions including the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and another v. United India Insurance Company and another (2020 KHC 6008) and Kunjila v. Mary (2024 KHC 219), interfered with the repudiation of claim and granted the relief sought in the original petition. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. As far as the challenge raised in this writ petition is concerned, this Court has already considered the said question in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakshmy and others in WP(C) 40506/2025. In the said decision, this Court after referring to Ramkhiladi's case and Kunjila's case came to a definite finding that the original petitioners before the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services therein were entitled to the reliefs.

5. In the light of the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that no interference is required.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, upholding Exhibit-P3.

Sd/-