IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1010 of 2007(C) --------------------------------- OPMV.351/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT : --------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOZHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SADANANDAN, S/O NARAYANAN, KARIPPAYI VEEDU, WARD X, KUTHIYATHODU PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA. 2. MOHAMMED, S/O SAINUDHEEN, VELIPPARAMBIL VEEDU, WARD VI, KUTHIYATHODU PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA. 3. K.A.MOHAMMED, S/O KARIM, VALIYAPARAMBIL, THIRUMALABHAGAM P.O., THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.NO.1010/2007 ORDER ON I.A.NO.1157/2007 IN M.A.C.A.NO.1010/2007 DISMISSED 22.08.2008 SD/-, M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1010 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, in OP(MV) 351/01. The Insurance Company has challenged the award on the ground that the claimant was a pillion rider not covered by the policy. The Tribunal also found that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and therefore gave the right to the Insurance Company to recover it from the owner. Now the Insurance Company has filed the appeal on the ground that being a pillion rider the company is not liable to pay the amount and therefore, the award requires modification. 2. I had perused the award. It is admitted that no such pleadings were taken at the time of the trial before the Tribunal. An application namely IA No.1156/07 is filed before this court for amending the written statement as well as another petition to receive the policy. I feel, at this belated stage, such an amendment cannot be permitted and that a new contention, which was not taken before the Tribunal, need not be permitted to be taken in this appeal. Therefore, I dismiss the application for amending the additional written statement as well as for reception of document. When it is so, the plea of non coverage of pillion rider will not arise. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps