Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7011
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.N.KRISHNAN, J
SINDHU BIJU – Appellant
Versus
SWAPNA K MATHEWS – Respondent
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL 64/2008
Insurance policies must be interpreted in favor of coverage, especially where ambiguities exist regarding the insured's risks.
Headnote:
Insurance - Liability - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 147 - The Court interpreted the policy terms and established that the insurer was liable for the risks associated with a pillion rider, contradicting the tribunal's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant appealed against the Claims Tribunal's award which exonerated the Insurance Company from liability, stating the policy did not cover pillion riders. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 34,800/- to the claimant.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the insurance policy terms included coverage for the pillion rider, referencing a prior case to conclude that the Insurance Company had extended liability under the policy.
Issues: Whether the insurance policy covered the risk associated with a pillion rider in the event of an accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The policy terms were interpreted to encompass the risk of a pillion rider, binding the insurance company to cover the liability.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the Insurance Company is determined liable to pay the compensation.
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in OP(MV) No. 786/2005. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 34,800/- and exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability on the ground that the policy does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. Referring to the clause of the policy which reads as follows:
"Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the schedule hereto the company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of:-
(i) death of or bodily injury to any person including 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 Motor Vehicles Act, the company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such persons by the insured".
(ii) damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured."
The very clause came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2009 (3) KLT 813 Shaji Vs. Shani Mathew. In paragraph 17 of the award the Division Bench held that going by the terms of the policy the Insurance Company has undertaken the liability. In such circumstances, we are of the view, the appeal filed by the claimants is only to be allowed and we do so. In para 17, this court held that "we can safely hold that this is a case where under the contract of Insurance, the Insurance Company has undertaken an extended liability by virtue of the words employed". We have already dealt with the word, which according to the Insurance Company clarify the liability and found that there is no merit in the contention that the words limit or abridge the liability. So in the light of the decision it has to be held that the terms of the policy squarely covers the risk of the person and therefore, Insurance Company is bound to pay the amount.
In the result, M.A.C. A. is allowed and the award of the Claims Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability is set aside and it is made liable and directed to pay the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE ln.
