THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2935 of 2003 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.94886 of 2003 Date:18.11.2010 Between: The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant AND Kavathi Bhagyalaxmi and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao Counsel for Respondents: Sri A. Radhive Reddy The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited arises out of the award dated 19.11.2002 in O.P.No.452 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Respondent No.2 in the said O.P. is the appellant. The said O.P. was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the legal heirs of one Kavati Linganna (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) in a motor accident involving a trax jeep bearing registration No.AP 1 C 3332 insured with the appellant. At the time of the death, the deceased was twenty-five years of age. It has come on record that he was agriculturist and also a businessman. The Tribunal has taken Rs.3,000/- per month as his income and deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. By adopting the multiplier of ‘18’, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.4,52,000/- as compensation, which includes Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards love and affection to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed cross objections. At the hearing, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, has fairly stated that his clients are not pressing the cross objections. Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, advanced two contentions; (1) that the offending vehicle was registered as a private vehicle and that the deceased was in no way connected with the said vehicle either as a driver or the owner or any of the family members of the owner and that therefore, the appellant is not liable for payment of compensation; (2) that under the policy, the liability of the appellant is limited to Rs.50,000/- per person. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, fairly conceded that both the abovementioned contentions were not raised before the Tribunal either by way of pleadings or argument. No issues on these aspects have been framed. In my opinion, unless appropriate pleadings have been raised and issues are framed, it is not permissible for the appellant to raise these grounds for the first time in this appeal. As these grounds were not raised before the Tribunal, there was no occasion for the respondents to meet these pleas and for the Tribunal to deal with the same. No reason has been shown by the appellant for not raising these pleas before the Tribunal. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to raise these grounds for the first time in this appeal, more so, in the absence of any explanation offered by it for not raising these pleas in the O.P. For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objections (SR) No.94886 of 2003 fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the C.M.A., interim orders dated 13.08.2003 and 17.03.2005 passed in C.M.A.M.P.Nos.17720 of 2003 and 26770 of 2003 are vacated and C.M.A.M.P.Nos.17720 of 2003 and 26770 of 2003 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th November, 2010 GHN