SAJU GEORGEGEORGE Vs. BABU SUBRAMONIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the claimant in O. P. (M. V)No. 1722 of 2000 filed under section 166 of the M. V. Act. He was admittedly a pillion rider. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 79,250/- with 7% interest per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation from respondents 1 and 2. The third respondent, Insurance Company, stands exonerated on th basis that the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation in the light of the decision in united India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC), as per which, the pillion riders are deemed to be gratuitous passengers and in case of non-remittance of additional premium towards pillion riders, the insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured.

(2.) WE heard th learned counsel for the appellant, Shri. C. Chandrasekharan. The learned counsel would submit that the award is liable to be interfered with. He would further submit that the award of the Tribunal is against the judgment of this Court in M. A. C. A. No. 1380 of 2008, reported in The new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLJ 9 ). Therein the Division bench has considered the very same type of policy i. e. "b" Policy, as has been produced by the Company. Clause (1) of Section II of the policy, which was considered by the Court in the said case, inter alia, reads as follows: 1. Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of accident caused by or arising out of the use of motor cycle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of: i) death or bodily injury to any person including person conveyed in or on the motor cycle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward. ii) damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust by or in the custody or control of the insured or any member of the insured's household are being conveyed by the motor cycle.

(3.) WE called for the records. We went through the "b" policy. The terms of the "b" policy in this regard is the same as the terms of the policy considered therein. Here also it is a "b" policy. In view of the above facts, the learned counsel for the appellant is correct in contending that the tribunal should not have exonerated the Insurance Company. Hence the appeal is only to be allowed.