~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The 4th respondent insurer in O.P.(MV) No.851/2006 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur against whom an award has been passed for an amount of ₹35,800/- with interest as compensation on account of the injury sustained to the petitioner before the Tribunal, has come up in appeal challenging the liability of the insurer. 2. The insurer had taken up a contention before the Tribunal that the petitioner being a pillion rider was not covered with the policy issued by the insurer in respect of the motor cycle involved in the accident. The Tribunal has found that the policy issued in respect of the vehicle can be treated as a package policy covering two unnamed passengers of the vehicle, and an amount of ₹70/- was collected as extra premium from the insured for covering personal accident to unnamed passengers two in number, up to an amount of ₹50,000/- per person. As extra premium was obtained by the insurer, the Tribunal held that the appellant/insurer is liable to compensate the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant Sri.Mathews Jacob and the learned counsel for the first respondent Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon.
4. The learned Senior counsel has invited the attention of this Court to the concerned clause in the liability only policy with regard to personal accident cover for owner driver as well as clause “IMT.16.personal accident to unnamed passengers other than injured and the paid driver and cleaner”. In both the said clauses, it has been stated that on payment of additional premium, the insurer undertakes to pay compensation in respect of bodily injuries to those persons noted in the said clauses. It seems that 4 types of injuries are noted under the caption 'details of injury' in the said clauses. Item No.(i) is death, item No.(ii) is loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or loss of one limb or sight of one eye, item No.(iii) is loss of one limb or sight of one eye and item No.(iv) is permanent total disablement from injuries other than named above. As against item No. (i), (ii), and (iv), the compensation is fixed as 100%, and as against item No.(iii), the compensation is fixed as 50%. Nowhere in the policy, it has been stated that the 'insurer has no liability to pay compensation in respect of other kinds of injuries sustained'. The table shown in the aforesaid clauses merely reveals the maximum percentage of compensation, which can be granted in case of those 4 categories of injuries. It does not mean that the insurer has no liability to pay compensation in respect of other injuries, which are not coming within the categories of injuries noted in the said table. Therefore, it is evident that the table is prepared in order to limit the compensation in respect of one type of injury to 50%. In respect of the other three categories of injuries shown therein the scale of compensation payable is 100%. The chart does not mean that the insurer has no liability to pay compensation in respect of other injuries sustained.
5. In this particular case, the policy makes it clear that extra premium was collected for personal accidents to two unnamed passengers and the coverage is up to an amount of ₹50,000/- per person. In the schedule of premium, it has not been specifically mentioned that the liability towards personal accidents to the said two unnamed passengers is confined to the injuries noted in the tables only. In the absence of any such clause, it has to be found that the appellant insurer is liable to meet the award amount. It seems that the Tribunal has correctly dealt with all the aspects and has passed the award, which does not invite any interference at all.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed by maintaining the impugned award. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/13/06 // True Copy // PA to Judge