F.A.O. No. 1328 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 1328 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 16.3.2010 National Insurance Company .......... Appellant Versus Manpreet Kaur & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 5.12.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nawanshahr (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), allowing the claim petition filed by the claimant / respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The claimants sought compensation on account of death of Jarnail Singh, the driver of the Maruti Car bearing No. CH-01-S- 4452. The appellant / Insurance Company denied its liability to pay compensation, by pleading therein, that it was a 3rd party insurance, therefore, it was not liable to pay any compensation. The F.A.O. No. 1328 of 2010 2 stand was also taken by the Insurance Company, that the claim petition was collusive and that the Driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence, and the fitness certificate. Other allegations were also denied. On the pleadings of the appellant, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues besides others :- “5. Whether the respondent No.1 driver of the vehicle bearing no. XCH-01-S-4452 was not holding and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so its effect? OPR-3 6. Whether the respondent No.1 was not having route-permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident? OPR-3 7. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion between the claimant and respondent No.1?OPR-3” At the time of hearing these issues were not pressed, as would be clear from the order passed by the learned Tribunal on issues No. 4 to 7, which reads as under :- Issues No. 4 to 7 18. These issues were neither pressed during the course of arguments nor any evidence has been led on these issues. As such, these issues are decided against the F.A.O. No. 1328 of 2010 3 respondents and in favour of the claimants.” Once the appellant has chosen not to press the issues, the burden of which was on the appellant, and furthermore application under Section 170 of the Act having not been moved, it is not open to the appellant to challenge the award on merit, in this Court. The issues which were not pressed before the learned Tribunal, can not be pressed in appeal. No merit. Dismissed. 16.3.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE