IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1868 of 2007() ----------------------- O.P (MV) NO.1123/1999 OF MACT, ERNAKULAM : APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI - 11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.S.RAJEEV, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY MENON, C/O.HOUSE NO.31/2142, MOHANA VILASOM, B.T.S., MAMANGALAM CROSS ROAD, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN - 24. 2. WILSON LANCY, D.NO.1095, VATTAMAKKAL HOUSE, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-18. 3. SUNILKUMAR, "KARUN CHANDRA", KADUVANAPARAMBIL, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1868 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in OP(MV) 1123/99. The appellant herein is the Insurance Company. Along with the appeal, the appellant has filed an application for amendment of the written statement and also another application in respect of documents. Now the Insurance Company wants to raise the contention that the claimant was a pillion rider and therefore he is not covered by the Act only policy and so in the light of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (4) SCC 404] it is not bound to indemnify the insured. 2. There cannot be any quarrel about the proposition of law canvased by the Insurance Company. But this is a case where the Insurance Company specifically raised a contention that the claimant was the rider and it was a self accident and therefore, he is not entitled to get compensation. The company cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time. When a finding is entered MACA No.1868/07 2 against them they cannot be permitted to turn around and say it was a pillion rider. Therefore, I do not want to entertain the pleading at this belated stage of appeal which is inconsistent with the original pleading in the written statement. In the absence of the pleading, question of pillion rider need not be considered and I am not inclined to consider it. Therefore, the claim for amendment is rejected and petition to receive the document is also rejected. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1868/07 3