IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 2151 of 2006(B) ----------------------- OPMV.1467/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHANAN, S/O.BHASKARA PANICKER, KANCHIVILASAM PUTHENVEEDU, CHAMAVILA, DALUMUGHAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAVINDRAN NAIR, AISWARYA, CHAMAVILA, DALUMUGHAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RAJ KUMAR, S/O.KESAVAN NAIR, KALLARATHALAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, DALUMUGHAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R1 SRI.HARISH HARI FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2151 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV) 1467/02. The insurance company is the appellant. The claimant was a pillion rider. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.33,110/- and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. 2. The appeal is now preferred on the ground that the vehicle is only covered by an Act only policy and so the pillion rider is not covered. Learned counsel also relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (2) KLT 884(SC). Unfortunately, there is not even an iota of pleadings regarding its non-liability. When no such pleading is taken in the written statement it may not be possible for any Court to raise an issue and find it. There may be varieties of policies which may or may not include a M.A.C.A. 2151 OF 2006 -:2:- pillion rider. So these are all matters which has to be pleaded and proved. Therefore without a plea this contention cannot be entertained. Hence the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-