Objections regarding dependency and salary deductions must be specifically pleaded and proved before the Claims Tribunal.

The Oriental Insurance Company (Appellant) filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 18.07.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri

The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 54,52,279/- to the claimants (Respondents No. 1 to 4) following the death of the deceased, who was the wife of Respondent No. 1 and mother of Respondents No. 2 to 4

The Appellant contested the award on two primary grounds: first, that the husband (Respondent No. 1) was not a dependent as he was earning at the time of the death, and second, that specific allowances were not deducted from the deceased's gross salary during income computation

1. Whether the husband of the deceased is entitled to compensation as a dependent despite being an earning member

2. Whether tribal area allowance, medical allowance, and stagnation allowance should be deducted from the gross salary when computing the monthly income for compensation

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concerning the maintainability and merits of appeals against accident claim awards

a party must lead evidence to prove a defense taken in a written statement

new factual grounds (such as specific salary deductions) cannot generally be raised at the appellate stage if they were not pleaded in the original written statement before the Tribunal

Regarding the first issue, the Court found that while the insurance company had claimed in its written statement that the claimants were not dependents, it failed to lead any evidence to substantiate this claim

The Court reaffirmed that the husband and children are naturally considered dependents of the deceased

Regarding the second issue on salary deductions, the Court observed that the Appellant's argument for deducting tribal area, medical, and stagnation allowances was not raised in the written statement filed before the Claims Tribunal

Due to this lack of pleading and evidence at the trial level, the Court held that the challenges to the income calculation and dependency status lacked merit

It held that the insurance company failed to prove non-dependency and was precluded from raising new arguments regarding salary deductions that were not part of the original pleadings

The liability to pay the compensation of Rs. 54,52,279/- remains fastened upon the insurance company