FAO No.5836 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5836 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 23, 2009. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant(s) v. Smt. Rajesh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): CM No.30252-CII of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 5 days in re-filing this appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. application stands disposed of. FAO No.5836 of 2009 This is insurer's appeal challenging the impugned award questioning their liability to pay compensation to the respondent-claimants as awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that the vehicle in question was not insured as the insurance policy in favour of the insured was cancelled due to non-payment of the premium as the cheque of insured vide which premium was paid had been dishonoured. Along with this appeal, an application has been filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for allowing the appellant to lead additional evidence with regard to the fact that the vehicle in question was not insured and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the impugned award would show that no such plea FAO No.5836 of 2009 -: 2 :- was raised by the appellant-insurance company in its pleadings before the Tribunal and in fact the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC filed by the appellant for amendment in the written statement was rejected vide order dated 24.1.2009. Apart from that an application filed by the appellant to lead additional evidence to prove the aforesaid fact of cancellation of insurance policy was rejected vide order dated 17.10.2008. As noticed above, prayer for leading additional evidence was rejected by the Tribunal and the aforesaid order was never challenged by the appellant. Even no such argument was raised by the appellant at the time of final arguments before the Tribunal with regard to rejection of the aforesaid prayer of the appellant. Moreover, there are no pleadings on behalf of the appellant with regard to the fact that insurance policy of the vehicle in question was not valid or had been cancelled or that vehicle in question was not insured. It is well settled that no amount of evidence can be looked into in the absence of pleadings. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal as well as application for leading additional evidence. No other point has been urged. Dismissed. December 23, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge