HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU MA No. 483/2013 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate v/s Udhyani Devi and Others .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. J.A. Hamal, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 04.06.2026 1. This Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred by the appellant thereby challenging judgment/award dated 26.07.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishtwar in case titled “Smt. Udyani Devi and Others vs. M/s GMT Constructions and Another”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,79,000/- along with interest @7% has been awarded in favour of the claimants/respondent nos. 1 to 5 and against the appellnat. 2. The only ground raised by the appellant- Insurance company to assail the impugned award is that the Tribunal, on the basis of the insurance of the vehicle, has fastened the liability upon the appellant- Insurance Company, but has failed to appreciate that the risk of labourers was not covered under the insurance policy, as no premium has been paid by the insured for covering the risk of the labourers. 3. It is further stated by learned counsel for the appellant that since the deceased was working as labourer with the offending vehicle, whose risk was not covered under the said policy, the company could not Sr. No. 35 2 have been saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondents. It has also been admitted by the appellant-Insurance Company that the said plea was not raised by the appellant before the Tribunal. Consequently, no evidence was led with respect to the ground raised by the appellant-Insurance company in the instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants states that since the only ground which has been raised by the appellant-Insurance Company was neither pleaded nor argued before the Tribunal, as such, the same cannot be taken into account by this Court. 5. Be that as it may, since the ground which has been raised and argued by the learned counsel for the appellant was not even pleaded before the Tribunal, as such, this Court do not find any perversity in the award dated 26.07.2013 passed by the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant-insurance company has already deposited Rs. 9,44,958/- along with interest before this Court on 26.02.2014 which has been kept in FDR. 7. Registrar Judicial is directed to release the said amount in respective accounts of the claimants, which would be provided by learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, after due identification and verification 8. In view of the above, the instant appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge JAMMU 04.06.2026 Manik