JUDGMENT : U.L. Bhat, J. Third Respondent herein (second Defendant) has not been served. In the light of what appears hereafter we do not think, we need wait till he is served in this appeal. 2. The first Respondent herein filed the suit against the owner and driver of lorry KLP 5293 and the two insurers, third Defendant (Appellant) and fourth Defendant (Insurance Department of the State) for damages and loss caused to her building by the lorry dashing against the same, at a time when it was driven by the second Defendant. It was alleged that on 22.6.1972 at about 6 p.m. second Defendant, in the course of his employment under the first Defendant, driving the lorry in the Jalseor Road in Kasargode, was proceeding southwards and he drove the lorry rashly and negligently and failed to keep control of the same, as a result of which lorry struck against a car coming from the south, swerved to the right, proceeded to a distance of 25 ft. in the road margin on the western side and dashed against the building. There are two shop rooms in the building. Three persons were injured. She, therefore, claimed damages from Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as well as from the insurers. Various defences were raised by the Defendants. The court below accepted the Plaintiffs case and awarded a sum of Rs. 13,258.45 as damages against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 with proportionate costs and future interest. However, the court below exonerated the 4th Defendant. Third Defendant, private insurer (subsequently nationalised), being aggrieved by the decree, has filed this appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant raised only two contentions before us in the course of his arguments. The first contention is that u/s 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as it stood at the time of the incident, maximum liability in regard to third party damages is Rs. 2,000/- and therefore the court below could not have directed third Defendant to pay the entire amount. Though such a contention is seen raised in the memorandum of appeal, it was not raised in the written statement, nor at any subsequent stage in the court below. In fact written statement of the third Defendant did not even state that the risk undertaken by the third Defendant is only statutory risk as provided in Section 95(2)(d). Though such a contention is seen raised in the memorandum of appeal, it was not raised in the written statement, nor at any subsequent stage in the court below. In fact written statement of the third Defendant did not even state that the risk undertaken by the third Defendant is only statutory risk as provided in Section 95(2)(d). Insurance policy was not produced in the court below; nor is it produced before this Court. In these circumstances we do not think, we can countenance this argument or uphold it. 4. The second contention urged is that the court below erred in exonerating State Insurance Department. The 4th Defendant also is liable and the court, it is contended, would be justified in apportioning the liability among the two insurers and that would reduce the burden on the Appellant. Learned Counsel invited our attention to the provision in Section 95(1)(b), which requires an insurance policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party. Therefore, it is argued, insurance policy issued by the 4th Defendant would necessarily cover the risk in regard to damage to any property of third party. Learned Counsel would argue that lower court was in error in holding that the liability of the 4th Defendant did not extend to cover damage to the property of third party. 5. The answer of the learned Government Pleader is based on the provisions of Section 90 of the Travancore Cochin Motor Vehicles Act, 1925. Accident occurred on 22.6.1972, long before Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act was made applicable to Kerala State. At the relevant time Travancore Cochin Motor Vehicles Act was in force. 4th Defendant has raised a specific contention that the vehicle was insured under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Motor Vehicles Act. Section 90 of that Act did not require statutory insurance to cover damage to any property of third party. There is no dispute that the risk is covered by Section 90 of that Act. That being so, we agree with the court below that 4th Defendant is not liable for the claim. 6. In these circumstances we find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs of the contesting Respondents. There is no dispute that the risk is covered by Section 90 of that Act. That being so, we agree with the court below that 4th Defendant is not liable for the claim. 6. In these circumstances we find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs of the contesting Respondents. Advocate's fee one set. Issue photostat/carbon copy on usual terms.