IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 1415 of 2007(F) ---------------------------------- (AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 8.11.2005 IN OPMV.1122/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA) .................... APPELLANT(S): /3RD RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSY ANTONY, S/O ANTONY, KIZHAKKETHALALCHAL, THATHAMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. ANIL JOSE, PROPRIETOR, M/S BLOMED INSTRUMENTATION, HOUSE NO.41/02, MULLASSERY CANAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM-11. 3. REGHUNATH, S/O DAMODARAN, MOOLAKKATTU VEETTIL, KUMARAPUTHOOR, MANNARKAD DESOM, PALGHAT DIST. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP. SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No.1415 of 2007-F ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Joseph, J. The 3rd respondent in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is the appellant herein. The appellant has been directed to pay the amount. The contention raised is that the claimant was a pillion rider and that he cannot be covered by the insurance policy. No such contention is seen taken in the court below. A perusal of the pleading reveals that the policy was admitted. Neither such contention that the appellant is not liable has been raised nor the policy was produced before the Tribunal. In such circumstances we do not see any ground to permit the petitioner to raise such contention. No doubt the appellant has produced the policy. It appears to be a comprehensive policy. In the absence of pleadings we cannot permit the appellant to raise the contention. There is no merit in the M.A.C.A.1415/2007 -2- appeal and it is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS