JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri Dandawate, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Both these appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the insurer, arise out of the same award dated December 22, 1989, passed on a bunch of claim petitions, arising out of the same accident. 3. Appeal No. 213 of 1990 relates to the claimant, Bhanwarbai, in Claim Case No. 2 of 1988 while Appeal No. 210 of 1990 relates to Rajjak's claim in Case No. 15 of 1988. 4. The only point raised by the appellants' counsel in both these appeals is that the claimants having admitted the extent of the insurer's liability which, according to the appellants, was Rs. 50,000 only, the appellants cannot be held liable beyond that. 5. Going through the impugned award, particularly, the issue part thereof, there was no such issue raised so far as Claim Case No. 15 of 1988 (relating to M. A. No. 210 of 1990 against the claimant, Bhanwarbai (respondent No. 1 in M. A. No. 213 of 1990), no such plea was raised. 6. Learned counsel cited a Full Bench decision of this court in [1989] EAC 134. It is not on the point that we are presently concerned with, 7. An insurer, as is well-settled, can raise only those points and grounds on which he can defend an action as provided under Section 149(2)(a) of the Act and the point must be specifically raised. Even if a ground is available to the insurer, but if it is not raised, as in the instant case, the same cannot be allowed to be urged at the appellate stage. 8. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals deserve summary dismissal. They are accordingly dismissed without notice to the opposite party.