Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.N.KRISHNAN, J
SUNIL – Appellant
Versus
HRS.C.D.LALITHA AND ANOTHER – Respondent
MACA/2354/2008
Insurance - Motor Accidents Claims - Act Section List - The court examined the terms of the insurance policy concerning the coverage of pillion riders, highlighting the need for specific clauses to establish liability in comprehensive policies.
Fact of the Case:
A pillion rider in a two-wheeler accident was awarded Rs.8,000 as compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, but the appeal questioned the coverage of the policy regarding pillion riders.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the insurance policy in question was comprehensive but did not automatically cover pillion riders without explicit terms in the contract, thus requiring a review of the policy's specific clauses.
Issues: Whether the comprehensive insurance policy covers the risk of a pillion rider and the implications of various policy terms regarding liability.
Ratio Decidendi: The determination of coverage for a pillion rider hinges on the specific terms of the insurance policy, where comprehensive policies may not inherently cover such risks.
Final Decision: The award is set aside for reconsideration regarding liability and policy terms.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)2928/00. The claimant, a pillion rider in a two wheeler sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,000/-. The insurance company is directed to pay the amount. In paragraph 17 of the award it is stated that Ext.B1 would show that it is neither an extended policy nor any additional premium is collected to cover the risk of a pillion rider. Admittedly the policy is a comprehensive policy. It is true that if it is an Act only policy the dictum laid down inTilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh)2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC) would come to play and the status of the pillion rider would be that of a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy. But just because it is a comprehensive policy that by itself does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. But it depends upon the terms and conditions of the contract and some of the policies which are issued prior to 2002 it is seen that there is a condition that the insurance company under S.2 (II)(i) has undertaken to cover the risk of a pillion rider carried in a motor vehicle other than for hire or reward. The said clause came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported inNew India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose and others [2008 (3) KHC 522(DB). In that case the Division Bench held that if there is terms of contract which cover the risk of a person then no additional premium need be collected for the coverage of risk. But it is matter that can be considered only after production of the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the liability is concerned and the parties are permitted to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 2.3.2009.
The MACA is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
