New grounds of dependency cannot be raised in appeal if not challenged during the trial.

On September 1, 1996, the deceased, Chinubhai Patel, was riding a Kinetic Honda when he was struck by a truck (Reg. No. GJ-13-T-6221) driven in a rash and negligent manner.

The deceased succumbed to his injuries.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ahmedabad, in MACP No. 228 of 1998, awarded compensation of Rs. 7,69,000/- with 9% interest.

The appellant Insurance Company challenged this award primarily on the ground of dependency, alleging that the claimants were settled abroad and not dependent on the deceased.

1. Whether the appellant Insurance Company can challenge the dependency of the claimants for the first time in an appeal when the same was not challenged during the trial.

2. Whether the original award passed by the Tribunal requires interference based on the new grounds raised regarding the claimants' residency.

The court applied the procedural principle that an appellate court will generally not entertain a new plea of fact—specifically dependency in motor accident claims—unless it was raised in the pleadings or challenged during cross-examination in the lower court.

Standard of proof required in Motor Accident Claim Petitions where the burden shifts to the insurer to disprove dependency if the claimant provides sworn testimony (Exhibit-32) that remains uncontroverted.

Raising new grounds of fact at the appellate stage requires the specific "leave of the court".

The Court observed that the Insurance Company had filed a written statement (Exhibit-21) and participated in the framing of issues (Exhibit-29).

Crucially, during the trial, claimant Rajshriben filed an affidavit (Exhibit-32) and was cross-examined by the appellant’s advocate.

The Court found that there was no challenge to the status of dependency during this cross-examination.

Applying the principle of finality in pleadings, the Court reasoned that in the absence of evidence or a prior challenge before the Tribunal, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise a new factual dispute regarding the claimants' foreign residency at the appellate stage without prior leave.

The Court found the appeal to be devoid of merits as the appellant failed to lay the necessary foundation during the initial trial.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's judgment and award.

The Court directed that any statutory amounts deposited with the Registry be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal and ordered the Record and Proceedings (R&P) to be sent back forthwith.

No order as to costs was made.