IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 1406 of 2006(F) ----------------------- O.P.(MV)1204/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: -------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI. GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: --------------------- REJI, S/O.MANI, RESIDING AT POTTACKAL HOUSE, KARUKADOM KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL - R1 SRI.SABU MATHEW -R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 1406/2006 ORDER IN I.A. NO.1601/2006 & I.A. NO.2207/2007 IN M.A.C.A. NO.1406/2006 DISMISSED SD/- 26/06/2008 M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE scm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1406 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV) 1204/02. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident. His contentions was that he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle driven by the 2nd respondent in the OP. The 1st respondent in the OP is the owner of the vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the Insurance Company. Respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the claim. The 3rd respondent has raised the contention that it was the claimant who was riding the vehicle at the time of the accident and the 2nd respondent in the claim petition was brought in only as a method to get compensation. The Tribunal found in favour of the claimant and granted a compensation of Rs.19,300/- with 6% interest. It is that award which is challenged in this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that the claimant being a pillion rider is not covered by an Act only policy and therefore in the light of the MACA No.1406/06 2 decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (4) SCC 404], the Insurance Company is not bound to indemnify and therefore, it has to be exonerated from the liability. Learned counsel had made available before me a copy of the written statement filed before the Tribunal. The specific contention of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal is to the effect that it was the claimant who was riding the bike at the time of the accident and the 2nd respondent therein was brought only as a temporary arrangement to claim compensation. 3. There is absolutely no pleadings to the effect that he was a pillion rider nor that the policy issued was only an Act only policy and therefore he is not covered under the policy. It is true that in Tilak Singh's case the apex court has held that a pillion rider in a vehicle is also a gratuitous passenger not covered by an Act only policy. In order to consider whether it is an Act only policy or whether it covers a pillion rider there must be pleadings to that effect. Here, the Insurance Company has no pleading of a pillion rider and their contention is that he was the rider of the vehicle. So at this length of time, the arguments raised by the Insurance Company on the basis of an Act only policy cannot be entertained. MACA No.1406/06 3 4. Learned counsel very strongly contends that the claimant was the owner of the vehicle in the light of some statements in the first information statement. But it has to be stated that it has to be proved The Tribunal below has found the 1st respondent as the owner and 2nd respondent as the driver of the vehicle. So that also will not come to the rescue of the Insurance Company. Therefore the appeal is devoid of merits and it is dismissed without cost. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1406/06 4