2025:KER:22874 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 3019 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2015 IN OPMV NO.231 OF 2013 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA / I ADDITIONAL MACT, THODUPUZHA. APPELLANT: THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, ADIMALI BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV SMT.DEEPA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: 1 AMAL, S/O. GEORGE, KAKKATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KURIZHUMPADI, ANAVERATTI VILLGE, IDUKKI – 685 561. 2 ANOOP K. MOHANAN, S/O. MOHANAN, KALARICKAL HOUSE, ADIMALI, IDUKKI (RC OWNER) – 685 561. 3 VISHNU, S/O. VIJAYAN, NEELAMVELIL HOUSE, ANAVIRATTI P.O., IDUKKI – 685 561. BY ADV SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH M.A.C.A.No.3019 of 2016 2025:KER:22874 -2- THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.3019 of 2016 2025:KER:22874 -3- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 11th day of March, 2025 This is an appeal filed by the 3rd respondent in OP(MV) No.231 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. 2. The Original Petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.03.2013. According to the petitioner, on 09.03.2013, at about 11.30 p.m., while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle, another motorcycle bearing Registration No.Kl-17/G-7594 ridden by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down. As a result of which, he fell down from the motorcycle and sustained injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the RC owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the said motorcycle. 4. The tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent, awarded a compensation of Rs.73,000/- and directed the 3rd respondent insurer to pay the same and then to recover the same from the 1st respondent RC owner. Aggrieved by the above said award, the 3rd respondent preferred this appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would M.A.C.A.No.3019 of 2016 2025:KER:22874 -4- argue that, since the petitioner was a pillion rider and there was only an Act only policy, the tribunal was not justified in directing the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation. According to her, the tribunal ought to have exonerated the insurer from the liability. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Tilak Singh 2006 (2) KLT 884. In the above decision, in paragraph 21, the Apex Court held that as follows: “In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani case (2003 (1) KLT 165 (SC) = (2003) 2 SCC 223), were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contention of the appellant Insurance Company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger.” 6. Since, in the above decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the statutory policy does not cover the pillion rider and, as such, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants. 7. In the light of the above decision, the tribunal was not justified in directing the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation awarded in favour of the petitioners. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The tribunal to the extent in directed the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation to the petitioners is set aside. The 1st M.A.C.A.No.3019 of 2016 2025:KER:22874 -5- respondent being the owner of the offending motorcycle is directed to pay the compensation ordered by the tribunal to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would submit that, he had already deposited 25% of the award amount before the tribunal and to pass an order disbursing the said amount. In case such an amount is deposited before the tribunal, the same shall be disbursed to the appellant/insurer, as per Rules. Sd/- C.PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE ADS