IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 2828 of 2008() ------------------------------------ OPMV.1127/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICER, OMANA BLDG. M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -35. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT IST RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. MRS. RAJEENA JOMON, W/O. JOMON K. JOSE, KAROTTU HOUSE, KAIPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM, 2. JOMON K. JOSE, S/O. K.J. JOSEPH, KAROTTU HOUSE, KAIPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R1 SRI.AJEESH K.SASI FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.2828 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of January 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Addl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)No.1127 of 2004. The claimant, a pillion rider sustained injuries in a road accident and she has been awarded a compensation of Rs.42,500/-. The insurance company was made liable to pay. There was a contention in the written statement that the pillion rider is not covered by the policy and therefore in the light of the dictum laid down in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Tilak Singh and others(2006) 4 SCC 404), it is not liable to indemnify. But in paragraph 12 of the award, the Tribunal observes that “the learned counsel for 2nd respondent also would fairly agree that the above policy is an extended policy covering pillion rider also”. In the light of the said submission, the Tribunal did not consider the other question and held that the insurance company is bound to indemnify. It is true that when some concession is made time and again this Court had directed to get endorsement somewhere, but it appears that has not been done. Whatever it may be, the MACA 2828/2008 -:2:- Apex Court has made it very clear that the remedy for the party in such cases is to file a review application before the court which had passed that order on the basis of such a concession. Therefore with liberty to move that court to file a review application and thereafter if the law permits to move any other authority, this appeal is disposed of. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-