Aggrieved by award dated 14.3.2012 in O.P.(M.V.) No.1422 of 2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, the third respondent before the Tribunal, who is the insurer has come up in appeal. 2. The petitioner before the Tribunal, who is the first respondent herein, suffered a motor accident while she was travelling by a private jeep bearing Reg.No.KRM 834. The court below passed the impugned award and directed the appellant herein to meet the award.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel, Shri.Mathews Jacob for the appellant and the learned counsel, Shri.M.S. Anil Kumar for the second respondent.
4. The second respondent is the registered owner of the vehicle. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has pointed out that Ext.B1 was a 'liability only policy' issued by the appellant in respect of the vehicle in question, which does not cover any passenger of the vehicle. Ext.B1 is the policy in question. Ext.B1 clearly shows that only the owner and driver of the jeep are covered as against the personal accidents. Admittedly, the first respondent herein, was a gratuitous passenger of the private jeep. On a perusal of Ext.B1 Insurance Policy, it is evident that such gratuitous passengers of the said vehicle are not covered under the policy.
5. In United India Insurance Company Limited v. Tilak Singh and Others[(2006) 4 SCC 404] and in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balan @ Balakrishnan and Others [2008 (1) KHC 202], it was held that in the case of such policy, there is no coverage for the life of gratuitous passenger of a private vehicle, unless extra premium for such coverage is paid. The same is supported by the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni [2009 (3) KLT 995(SC)] wherein it was held that in cases wherein the insurance company has no liability to pay the compensation, it cannot be compelled to make the payment with a direction to recover it later from the owner of the vehicle. The same view has been followed by a Full Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Joseph[2012(2) KLT 132(FB)].
6. Matters being so, a gratuitous passenger of a private vehicle is not covered by Ext.B1 'liability only policy', when no passengers in that vehicle other than owner and driver are covered.
7. The learned senior counsel has pointed out that even though Ext.B1 policy was produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has erred in passing the award against the appellant. After the passing of the award, a review petition was also filed, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal. It has to be found that the insurer is not liable to compensate the first respondent or to indemnify the second respondent in any manner, in this case. Therefore, that part of the impugned award, by which the appellant is directed to deposit the award amount with interest and costs, is only to be set aside. The award amount is payable by the second respondent herein, who is the registered owner of the vehicle.
In the result, this appeal is allowed and that part of the impugned award by which the appellant was directed to pay the award amount with interest and costs, is set aside. The award amount shall be paid by the second respondent herein. There is no order as to costs. The deposit made under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the appellant, shall be reimbursed to the appellant.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE dl // TRUE COPY //