IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 1405 of 2008(D) -------------------------------- (TO REVIEW THE JUDGEMENT IN MFA.NO.1352/2001 DATED 06/09/2007) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ APPELLANT IN MFA.NO.1352/01: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS CELL, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE P.B.NO. 3235, OMAMA BUILDINGS, JEWS STREET, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI - 682 035. BY ADV. MR.LAL GEORGE. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN MFA.NO.1352/01: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHINNAPPAN, S/O.GOPALAN, ETTUTHENGIL VEEDU, KOTHAKULAM, KAITHARAM P.O., KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. P.S.GURUDEVAN, PUTHUSSERY VEEDU, VALIAPALLANTHURUTH, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. M.J.BIJU, S/O.JOSEPH, MENACHERY HOUSE, KAITHARAM P.O., NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADVS. MR.G. BALAMURALEEDHARAN, MR.N.T. NANDAKUMAR. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.No.1405 of 2008 and C.M.Appl.No.3162 of 2008 in M.F.A.No.1352 of 2001 ------------------------------------- Dated 17th February, 2009 ORDER Koshy, Ag.C.J . For the reasons stated in the affidavit delay in filing the review petition is condoned. This review petition is filed challenging the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation as the injured was a pillion rider and the policy was an `Act Only Policy'. No such contentions were raised before the Tribunal. The appeal was filed in 2001. In the appeal also such grounds were not taken up. It is stated that I.A.No.1711 of 2007 was filed to amend the grounds. It is well settled law that when insurance company denies the liability after admitting liability, it should certainly plead and prove. Since no evidence was adduced regarding the same, we are of the view that such a contention was not raised at this distance of time. Accident occurred in 1998. In any event, subsequent court decision is not a ground for review. No valid grounds are made out to review the impugned judgment. The review petition is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE K.HEMA JUDGE tks