IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 350 of 2007(A) --------------------------- OPMV.835/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KANNUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRAMOD N.P., S/O KUMARAN, NARATH POLA HOUSE, KARIKKANKULAM, P.O.PAPPINISSERI WEST, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. C.V.SUGESH, S/O C.V.KUNHIKANNAN, C.V.HOUSE, KARIKKANKULAM, P.O.PAPPINISSERI WEST, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. RAJESH K.V.,S/O KRISHNAN K., KAMACHI HOUSE,P.O.PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH FOR R1 SRI.K.BABU FOR R1 SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 350 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(MV)835/01. The insurance company is the appellant before me and it is contended that the claimant being a pillion rider and the policy being an Act only policy, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify and therefore requires interference by this Court. Admittedly, absolutely there is no pleading before the Tribunal regarding the exoneration of the liability. It is a specific plea that has to be taken. It is also seen that the policy certificate is also not marked. So at this belated stage I do not want to entertain that plea and remand the case back to the Tribunal. Therefore, in the absence of any pleadings and further in the absence of the copy of the policy the contention cannot be entertained and therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-