IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 664 of 2007() --------------------------------- OPMV.1189/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP.BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-II. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER&RESPONDENTS 1&2 RESPECTIVELY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BADARUNEESA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SALUDEEN, RESIDING NEAR SANGAM THEATRE, VANDITHAVALAM P.O., PATTANCHERY, CHITTUR TALUK. 2. A.L.VIJAYA RAJ (AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS), S/O.ALAPU KONAR, 30/04, KUMAR ROAD, VALAPPARAI, TAMILNADU. 3. CHAVAL ALIAS SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O. ALI RAWTHER, RESIDING NEAR SANGAM THEATRE, VANDITHAVALAM P.O., PATTANCHERY, CHITTUR TALUK. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.931/2007 IN MACA. NO.664/2007 DISMISSED 15/07/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 664 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV)1189/01. The claimant, according to the insurance company was a pillion rider and therefore he is not covered by the policy, the policy being an Act only policy. Learned counsel had raised this contention on the basis of the Apex Court decision reported in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (4) SCC 404)]. It is true that the Apex Court has held that a pillion rider is not covered by an Act only policy. But in order to consider that contention there must be some pleadings before the Tribunal. There is absolutely no pleading denying its liability to pay the amount. Therefore there cannot be a consideration of the question without a pleading. At this belated stage, in the appeal I do not want to entertain that pleading. Therefore, in the absence of pleading to that effect M.A.C.A. 664 OF 2007 -:2:- and more so when there is a possibility of a policy having wider coverage, I do not want to entertain this appeal on that point and hence it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-