THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.824 OF 2000 DT.26.04.2010 Between:: The National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Vijayawada. ……………Appellant. Vs. Jampana Sesha Ratnam and five others. ………………..Respondents. JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.57 of 1985, dated 27.02.1987, challenging to the effect that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the vehicle bearing No.A B K 6572 was not insured with the third respondent, but the Tribunal erroneously held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and hence, the finding of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perusal of the material papers does not indicate that the plea that the offending vehicle had not at all been insured with the appellant Insurance Company was raised before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal extracted the pleadings filed by the respondents but the extracts do not indicate any such plea taken by the Insurance Company. M.V.O.P. is of the year 1985. The burden that the vehicle was not actually insured with the Insurance Company lies on the appellant. However, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company says that except stating that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance company, the respondents/claimants did not furnish any material so as to enable the appellant to find out as to whether the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation is liable to be set aside. Absolutely I see no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant only as on the date of hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company argued before this Court by stating that such a plea was raised before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company did not examine the owner so as to ascertain whether the vehicle was insured with the appellant on the date of accident. Without there being any basis, such a plea cannot be considered. The order of the Tribunal indicates that such a plea had ever been raised. This Court is of the considered view that in the absence of such a plea, the learned Tribunal is justified in not adverting to the said contention. From the very fact that no issue as to whether the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company was framed, it can be understood that no such plea was raised by the appellant and therefore, it did not come up for consideration before the learned Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons, I absolutely see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO J., Dt.26.04.2010 tjs