Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3039 Court No. - 17 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 23 of 2009 Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Company Limited Lko.Through Its R.M. Respondent :- Smt. Seema Gupta Counsel for Appellant :- Shishir Pradhan Counsel for Respondent :- R.K.Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Heard. 2. Present first appeal from order has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1988) against the judgment and order dated 01.10.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Faizabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 73 of 2007 (Smt. Seema Gupta and others Vs. Sushil Kumar Jaiswal and another) and awarded Rs. 23,69,700/- with 6 % annual interest against the appellant i.e. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accident had taken place on 01.10.2006 between a truck bearing registration no. UP-78-AN-0484 and Maruti Car bearing No. UP-42-C-3615 in which one Anupam Gupta had succumbed to his injuries. 4. It is further submitted that the incident was not happened only due to fault of the truck driver rather it was also due to the negligence on the part of the driver of Maruti Car, which was driving by the deceased thus, it is a case of contributory negligence hence liability of owner and the insurance company is half and half. 5. It is further submitted that the in-hand (take home) salary of the Anupam Gupta (deceased) after deduction was Rs. 5587.72 but the Court below calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of higher salary of the deceased i.e. Rs. 22555.72 and awarded a higher compensation. 6. It is further submitted that even truck driver was not produced before the Court below. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the grounds taken in the present appeal and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant had never ever taken or raised before the Tribunal and it is for the first time the same is being raised before this Court, thus, there is no illegality in the judgment and order dated 01.10.2008 hence the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the grounds and submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court was never ever raised/submitted/pleaded before the trial Court. For determination of these points/grounds, relevant issues were to be framed and evidence was to be adduced. As such neither the issues had been framed on the said point nor any evidence was ever led. As per the material available before the court below, the issues were framed, the evidence was adduced and accordingly, the judgment impugned has been passed and the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show even a single error in the impugned judgment. 9. As far as the submission regarding the quantum of compensation on the higher side by treating the salary of deceased as 22,555/-, the same has been passed on the basis of the evidence and material on record while deciding the issue no. 5. The ground no. 'K' of the present appeal was never ever argued or pleaded before the Court below hence, there is no error in the finding reached by learned court below while deciding the issue no. 5 as well. A new case of contributory negligence and alleged wrong determination of compensation is sought to be introduced at the appellate stage for the first time, it is not permissible under the law. 10. Under these facts and circumstances of the present case, no error is found in the judgment and order dated 01.10.2008 , thus, no interference is called for. 11. Present appeal is devoid of merit, hence, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.1.2025Ashish Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench