HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3599 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda (for brevity “the Tribunal”), in O.P.No.795 of 1999, by the order, dated 22.11.2002, wherein and whereunder a sum of Rs.96,400/- was awarded as compensation for the death of one China Venkata Krishnaiah in a road accident that occurred on 21.12.1998, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The particulars as regards the manner and method in which the accident occurred, the aspect of rash and negligence, etc., are not in dispute and hence, they are not referred to. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurer is two fold. Firstly, that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and secondly, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. So far as the first contention is concerned, it is to be seen from the impugned order that no such plea was taken at all before the Tribunal nor anybody was examined on behalf of the insurance company or the owner of the vehicle. When no such plea was taken and no evidence was adduced at all except marking the insurance policy, it cannot be held that ground has been taken before the Tribunal and in such a case, there cannot be any occasion for the Tribunal to record any finding on such issue. It is only for the first time this ground is taken before this Court, which cannot be accepted for the aforementioned reasons. Coming to the next contention of the learned counsel that the quantum of compensation is excessive, it is to be seen that this is a case of death and the Tribunal having taken into consideration various aspects including monthly income of the deceased as Rs.700/-, as evidence by Ex.A-7, fixed the total compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.96,400/-, which, in my, considered view is just and reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal warranting interference with the impugned order. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 26th August 2010 dr