IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 611 of 2008(F) ------------------------------ OPMV.1671/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI - 11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI, SREEDEVI MANDIRAM, KANAKARI VILLAGE, WARD - 3, PONGA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. RAJASEKHARAN, S/O.SANKARA PANICKER, KUNNUMMEL NIKARTHU, EZHUPUNNA SOUTH P.O., CHERTHALA - 688 524. 3. M.K.GAFOOR, S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED, MALIACKAL HOUSE, CHULLICKAL P.O., KOCHI - 5. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 611 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P.(MV)1671/01. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.22,200/- and it is against that decision the 3rd respondent insurance company has preferred this appeal. The grievance of the insurance company is that its contention regarding its non-liability on account of the fact that the claimant was a pillion rider has not been considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant made available before me for perusal the written statement. In paragraph 5 of the written statement there is a specific recital that the claimant was a pillion rider in a two wheeler and that a pillion rider is not covered under an Act only policy, therefore the respondent may be absolved from all the liabilities. Unfortunately the Tribunal did not consider this point at all nor did it raise any issue and M.A.C.A. NO. 611 OF 2008 -:2:- therefore there is omission on the part of the Tribunal to consider the said point. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration. Hence the award of the Tribunal is set aside so far as it relates to the liability and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after permitting all concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. I make it very clear that the appellant has to take out notice to the claimant after it enters appearance before the Tribunal. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-