IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 1012 of 2007(C) ----------------------- OP(MV) NO.1730/1998 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P.CELL, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ERAPPUNGAL HOUSE, KURUVAMPOYIL POST, KODUVALLY-VIA, KOZHIKODE. 2. ABDUL NASSAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O.HASSAN,ERAPPUNGAL HOUSE, KURUVAMPOYIL POST, KODUVALLY-VIA, KOZHIKODE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 1012/2007 ORDER ON I.A NO.1176 OF 2007 IN M.A.C.A.No. 1012 OF 2007 DISMISSED SD/- 22/08/2008 M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1012 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal), Kozhikode, in OP(MV) 1730/98. 2. The Insurance Company is the appellant. The appeal is preferred contending that the claimant was a pillion rider not covered by the policy and therefore the Insurance Company is not bound to indemnify the owner. Along with the appeal, they have also filed an application for receiving the policy as well as to amend the written statement. Both applications are highly belated at this stage and such a pleading cannot be allowed to be raised in this appeal. Therefore, those applications are dismissed. So far as the appeal is concerned, since there is no denial regarding the liability of a pillion rider in the written statement, that point does not deserve consideration especially in the light of the rejection of the application for amending the written statement and reception of policy. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps