IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 1575 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.1642/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT: 3RD RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2 & 4 RESPECTIVELY: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. RATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.BALACHANDRAN NAIR, MANIKANDANVILA VEEDU, ATHIYANNOOR, ARALUMOODU P.O., NEYYATINKARA. 2. APPUKUNNAN.A., HOUSE NO.338/IX, KANJIRAM VILAKATHU, KALLUVILA VEEDU, OORUTTUKALA, ATHIYANNOOR, NEYYATINKARA P.O. * 3. ARUN.R., PULLUVILA VEEDU, MARUTHOOR, CHAIKOTTUKONAM, AMARAVILA P.O.(D E L E T E D). *R3 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DTD. 4/09/08 IN I.A.2268/08. 4. ANAS, PANYAM VEEDU, VEMPIL PANAYAM, ANADU, MANNOORKONAM P.O. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.1575 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of October 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV)No.1642 of 2002. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident. He was a pillion rider. The Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs.22,270/- and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. The insurance company has come up in appeal with a contention that it is not liable to pay compensation to a pillion rider. Learned counsel would contend that the Apex Court in the decision reported in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Tilak Singh(2006(2) KLT 884(SC) has held that unless additional premium is paid in an Act only policy, the pillion rider is not covered. There cannot be any quarrel about the proposition of law argued before me. But, in order to consider it there must be a pleading which is totally absent. Now an attempt is made to entertain the same by a prayer for amendment of the pleading and also to produce the policy. At this length of time such a pleading cannot be entertained. Therefore the request to receive the additional amendment or MACA 1575/2006 -:2:- amendment of the written statement cannot be allowed. When there is no pleading the question of consideration does not arise. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-