IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 821 of 2007() --------------------------------- OPMV.461/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/ADDL 5TH RESPONDENT ---------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP.BY ITS ASST.MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA,HOSPIRTAL ROAD,KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & ADDL 4TH ------------------------- RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY 1. RAJAN L.K,S/O.LAZAR,KAROTTUKONAM HOUSE, MANAPPURAM,MALAYINKIL P.O., THIRUVNANANTHAPURAM. 2. T.R.SAJEEV,THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARNAKODAM,PALARIVATOOM P.O.,KOCHI. 3. PRAMOD P.S.,S/O.SREENIVASAN, PUTHEKATTU HOUSE,PONNURUTHI, CHEERAKUZHI,POONITHARA,ERNAKULAM. 4. M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.1.,THAKARAPRAMBU JUNCTION,PAZHAVANGADI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SAJI,S/O.ABDULKHADAR,51 SCHOOL STREET, EHARATHIPARM,PONDICHERY. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 821 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.(MV) 461/02. An award was passed for an amount of Rs.35,000/-. The insurance company has preferred this appeal on the ground that the injured was a passenger in a private car and as per the dictum laid down in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (4) SCC 404)], he is not covered. The Tribunal shall not be found fault with for the reason that there was no such pleading in the written statement. Now, an attempt is made for filing an application for receiving additional written statement. I think it shall not be permitted at this stage because though amendment of pleading as contemplated under Order 6 Rule 17 is not squarely applicable to the Claims Tribunal the intention of the legislature has to be gathered from there and an amendment just because there M.A.C.A. 821 OF 2007 -:2:- is a subsequent decision cannot be allowed at the appellate stage. Since there is no averment in the written statement when the Tribunal decided the case, one cannot find fault with the decision of the Tribunal. Therefore I refuse to allow the application for amendment and in that process I also hold that there is no merit in this appeal and hence it is dismissed. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [True copy] P.A. to Judge.