National Insurance Company Ltd vs Sreegharan Nair

A. Badharudeen, J

This appeal is filed at the instance of the 5th respondent in O.P(MV).No.1517/2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. Respondents herein are the original petitioner and respondent no.4, who is the owner of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7/N 1297.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

Short facts of this case: In this case the 1st respondent herein, who is the original petitioner in O.P(MV).No.1517/2007, lodged a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation pursuant to an accident occurred on 2.6.2007 at 9.15 a.m while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7/N-1297. The specific case put up by the 1st respondent/original petitioner is that while travelling so as a pillion rider in the said motorcycle driven by the original 2nd respondent, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7 L-6761 hit against the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7/N-1297 and the 1st respondent herein sustained serious injuries.

The appellant herein filed written statement disputing the accident and liability on the ground that the risk of the pillion rider/the 1st respondent herein/the original petitioner is not covered by the policy, since the policy is an `act only' policy, which would not cover the risk of a pillion rider.

The Tribunal tried O.P(MV).Nos.917/2009 and 1517/2007 together. PW1 examined and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claimant and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the respondents. Thereafter, the Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,03,925/- to the 1st respondent with 8% interest per annum. The Tribunal directed the 5th respondent/appellant and also the 3rd respondent, the insurer of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7 L-6761 to deposit the amount in the proportion 50:50.

The sum total of the argument at the instance of the appellant is that the policy issued in relation to motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7/N-1297, where the original petitioner was the pillion, is an `act only' policy which would not cover the risk of a pillion rider.

In view of this argument, I have perused Ext.B1, the photocopy of the policy issued in relation to the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7/N-1297. A mere perusal of the same would go to show that the same is titled as “liability only policy”. On reading Ext.B1 meticulously, it is discernible that no amount to cover the risk of pillion rider was collected and the same is only an `act only' policy to cover the risk of third parties and the rider. Thus, I am convinced that the contention raised by the appellant is sustainable, though the learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued otherwise without any materials to substantiate the said contention. It is the settled law that an `act only' policy/statutory policy does not cover the risk of a pillion rider, and therefore, the company has no liability to indemnify such persons. Therefore, in so far as 50% of the amount awarded in this case directed to be deposited by the original 5th respondent/appellant, the insurance company is concerned, the company is entitled to get full exoneration. Consequently, it is held that the said 50% portion of the amount allowed by the Tribunal shall be deposited by the 1st respondent herein and on failure to do so, the original claimant can proceed against the 1st respondent herein and recover the same in accordance with law.

The appeal is allowed accordingly.