JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the award dated 3.9.1987 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara.One Jaichand was a casual labour for loading and unloading stones in Truck No. RJE 2403. On 24.4.1984 Jaichand and labourer was sitting in the truck in the rear side. When it reached near Gangapur Bus Stand the truck jumped on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver as he did not notice the speed breaker and as a result of which Jaichand fell down from the truck and later died in the hospital, Respondents No. 1 to 5 as heirs of the deceased made a claim before the Tribunal and made a demand for Rs. 92,000/- under different heads. The learned Tribunal, however, has given an award of Rs. 85,000/- with interest against the owner of the truck as well as against the Insurance Company. 2. The Insurance Company has come up in appeal against the said award. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr. Bhagwati Prasad has argued that the case of the deceased at best could be taken with that of a passenger and an award not more than Rs. 5,000/- could have been awarded which is statutory. On my pointedly asking the learned counsel as to where was this plea raised before the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel was unable to point out the same. There was neither any issue on the point nor any argument was raised as I noticed from the impugned award. 4. In the grounds of appeal in para (iii) the appellant has stated that according to the schedule appended to Section 4 of the Workmen Compensation Act the claimants were entitled to an amount of Rs. 19,200/- and the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding the amount in question. It thus, appears that the appellant itself was no clear about its stand. It is not denied that the deceased was working as a casual labour with the truck. It has been found by the learned Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 400/- per month out of which he would be spending roughly an amount of about Rs. 150/- on himself. His age has been found to be 45 years, and thus, the amount calculated i.e. 250 x 12 x 15 is equivalent to Rs. 45,000/- appears to be just and proper. 5. 400/- per month out of which he would be spending roughly an amount of about Rs. 150/- on himself. His age has been found to be 45 years, and thus, the amount calculated i.e. 250 x 12 x 15 is equivalent to Rs. 45,000/- appears to be just and proper. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant faced with this situation urges that the point which he has raised in respect of the liability of the appellant which cannot be fastened to more than Rs. 5,000/- is purely a legal point and can be permitted to be agitated in appeal. 6. After having applied my mind to this argument I don't find any substance in it and the same is hereby rejected. The appellant in my opinion cannot be permitted to urge any point which has neither been raised in the pleadings nor any issue was claimed on it nor the same was argued at the final stage. It has been found by the Tribunal as a matter of fact that the driver was negligent in driving the truck at a high speed and the truck jumped on account of the negligent driving at a point where there was a speed breaker and the driver failed to take notice of the same.I have perused the impugned award. The same appears to be perfectly just and proper. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances I don't find that the award suffers from any illegality, impropriety, and error of jurisdiction. The appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******