IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 2126 of 2006 -------------------------------- OPMV.1760/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA ........................................ APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- - UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ 1. MARIAN GOMEZ, S/O.XAVIER, THAIPARAMBU PANCHUVADU, ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. NAUSHAD, S/O.MOHAMMED YOUNIS, KOMAPARAMBU VEEDU, VELLAKKINAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. RUGMINI NARAYANAN, NO.1, NEW STREET, THONDANKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY FOR R3 SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA NO. 2365/2006 IN M.A.C.A NO. 2126/2006 A. DISMISSED 14/07/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE / TRUE COPY / tga M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2126 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July, 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)1760/00. The appeal is preferred on the ground that the claimant was a pillion rider not entitled to be covered in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (4) SCC 404). It is true that by virtue of the said decision a pillion rider is not covered if extra premium is not collected. But in order to consider that contention there must be some pleadings. The original written statement is totally lacking regarding the same. So there was no question of any dispute with respect to the factum of liability before the Tribunal. Without a plea in the written statement it may not be appropriate for this Court to consider especially when chances are there whereby additional premium would have been collected and there would have been coverage. So M.A.C.A. 2126 OF 2006 -:2:- suffice to say, at this stage, on account of the lack of pleadings this Court is not in a position to consider the said question and therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-