BABU MATHEW Vs. BIJ MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P. (MV) No. 1126 of 2000. The claimant has challenged the finding of the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company from indemnifying the owner. The Tribunal held that "thus notwithstanding the nomenclature, Ext. B1 does not suggest that any amount has been collected by the third respondent to cover the risks of persons other than third parties or own damage of the vehicle. In the circumstances, the third respondent has no liability to indemnify the second respondent, the insured".

(2.) Under Section 11(1) of the conditions attached to the policy it is stated that "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 motor cycle against all sum including the claimant's costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay instead of (i) death or bodily injury to any person including person conveyed in or the motor cycle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward". Learned Counsel would contend that by the terms and conditions of the policy referred to above, the person travelling as a pillion rider is also covered by virtue of this clause. Recently a Division Bench of this Court had considered this aspect in MACA1380/2008 by judgment dated 4.7.2008. There also it was a B policy and Section 11(1 )(i) of the conditions attached to the policy revealed that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the persons travelling in the vehicle are covered. The very same condition was considered and the Division Bench of this Court held that "the above clearly states that the insurer has undertaken liability in respect of death or bodily injuries to any person including a person conveyed in or on the motor cycle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward. Here, no limitation of liability is mentioned in the Schedule. In fact specific coverage is provided for the risk of gratuitous passenger as per the conditions of policy regarding the coverage of risk due to death or bodily injury to any person, provided, the person is not carried for hire or reward". So the very same clause which is relied on by the appellant has been interpreted and found that it covers a pillion rider travelling in a motor bike.

(3.) There is no embargo for entering into such a contract is also very clear from the decision of the Apex Court in Amrit Lal Sood & Anr. v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors., 1998 3 SCC 744. The purport of this decision was considered by the Apex Court in a Larger Bench decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya & Ors., 2002 1 ACC 299 . The Supreme Court held as follows: