IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 2127 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.963/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... 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. A.T.RASHEED, S/O.KUNHIMON, PAREKKAL HOUSE, EDAKAZHIYOOR DESOM, EDAKAZHIYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. MUJEEB, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, PONNABATHEYIL HOUSE, PANCHAVADY DESOM, EDAKAZHIYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 3. MOHAMMED SAHEER, KAREKATT HOUSE, P.O.AYIROOR (VIA) PERUMBADAPPE, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA No. 2731/07 IN MACA 2127/07 DISMISSED 24.7.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 2127 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in OP(MV) 963/00. It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling as a pillion rider, an accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent in the claim petition. The Tribunal found the negligence against 1st respondent and ordered the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. Now the Insurance Company wants to incorporate a plea that being a pillion rider he is not covered by the policy. 2. It is true that if it is an Act only policy, in the light of the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (4) SCC 404], a pillion rider will not be covered by the policy. But the principle question is whether there was such a pleading available before the Tribunal at the time of trial of the case. Insurance Company filed two additional written statements in the case. They did not raise any contention regarding the non coverage MACA No.2127/07 2 of a pillion rider. Therefore, at this point of time permitting the Insurance Company to amend the written statement and allowing them to raise a new contention may not be proper. Therefore, the prayer to amend the written statement is rejected. Since there is no pleading, question of non coverage also does not arise. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.2127/07 3