Honble ARORA, J. – This appeal and the cross-objections are directed against the Award dated 6.9.86 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali. The claimants filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation/damages awarded to them by the Tribunal while the cross-objections have been filed by the Insurance Company only for the rejection of the claim petition or in the alternative to remand the case to the Tribunal with the direction to permit the defendants to produce the evidence avail- able with the insured as provided in Sub-section 110 (2A); or in the alternative it is to be held that the claimant is also responsible for the accident and amount of the award be reduced; or in the alternative to fix the liability of the insurance company to the limit of Rs. 50,000/-. (2). Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, submitted that he does not want to press the appeal. The appeal, filed by the appellants, is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. (3). Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that inspite of the fact that the appeal, filed by the appellant- claimant, is dismissed, the cross-objections still survive and those should be decided on merit. It is true that the cross objections cannot be dismissed merely because the appeal has not been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the cross- objections are to be decided on merit. (4). The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company is that the liability of the insurance company was limited only to Rs. 50,000/- as per the policy and the insurance company can be asked to indemnify the insured only to this extent. Before the learned Judge of the Tribunal, this ground was never taken by the insurance company and even the insurance policy has not been placed on record either by the insurance company or by the insured. The liability of the insurance company to indennity the insured was not denied. Even this ground was not agitated at the time of argument before the Tribunal. As the dispute regarding the limited liability of the insurance company was not raised by the insurance company before the Tribunal, therefore, no issue was framed to this effect. The liability of the insurance company to indennity the insured was not denied. Even this ground was not agitated at the time of argument before the Tribunal. As the dispute regarding the limited liability of the insurance company was not raised by the insurance company before the Tribunal, therefore, no issue was framed to this effect. If such plea would have been taken in the reply during during the trial, the claimant would have produced the evidence on this point, also. As the insured has taken the comprehensive insurance policy and the facts of the accident and the liability of the insurance company were not denied by it before the Tribunal and when the question regarding the limited liability of the insurance company was not raised, the issue could not be struck-out to this effect and the matter was decided by the learned Judge of the Tribunal without any objection by the insurance company to this effect. Now, in the appeal, the insurance company cannot be permitted to deny its liability, particularly when the insured is not present before us. In the absence of the insured, his liability cannot be adversely affected par- ticularly in the circumstances when this issue was not raised before the learned Judge of the Tribunal. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company is, therefore, devoid of any force and the cross-objections, filed by the insurance company, therefore, deserve to be dismissed. (5). In the result, the cross- objection filed by the insurance company, have no merit and the same hereby dismissed. The appeal, filed by the claimant-appellants is dismissed as it has not been pressed.