High Court Kerala High Court

United India Insurance Company … vs Sadanandan on 22 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
United India Insurance Company … vs Sadanandan on 22 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1010 of 2007()


1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SADANANDAN, S/O NARAYANAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. MOHAMMED, S/O SAINUDHEEN,

3. K.A.MOHAMMED, S/O KARIM,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :22/08/2008

 O R D E R
                             M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                             --------------------------
                       M.A.C.A. No. 1010 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, Alappuzha, in OP(MV) 351/01. The Insurance

Company has challenged the award on the ground that the claimant was a

pillion rider not covered by the policy. The Tribunal also found that the

driver did not have a valid driving licence and therefore gave the right to the

Insurance Company to recover it from the owner. Now the Insurance

Company has filed the appeal on the ground that being a pillion rider the

company is not liable to pay the amount and therefore, the award requires

modification.

2. I had perused the award. It is admitted that no such pleadings

were taken at the time of the trial before the Tribunal. An application

namely IA No.1156/07 is filed before this court for amending the written

statement as well as another petition to receive the policy. I feel, at this

belated stage, such an amendment cannot be permitted and that a new

contention, which was not taken before the Tribunal, need not be permitted

to be taken in this appeal. Therefore, I dismiss the application for

amending the additional written statement as well as for reception of

document. When it is so, the plea of non coverage of pillion rider will not

arise.

The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

vps