Honble ARORA, J. – This appeal is directed against judgment dated 4.2.1988 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal, filed by Claimants Chhagan Kanwar and others, is part. (2). Claimants Chhagan Kanwar and five others, who are the legal representatives and dependants of deceased Chandrasen Singh, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 4,67,724/-. The case of the claimants, as set-out in the claim petition, was that on 20.11.1973, in the night at about 9.45 p.m., Chandrasen Singh was going from Sumerpur to Ajmer on his motor- cycle No. RJZ 699. One Pritam Das was sitting on the pillion sent of the motor-cycle. When the motor-cycle rea- ched near the bridge on Sanderao river one tanker No. RJQ 3905 driven rashly and negligently by its driver Nanu Ram and Narain Singh came from the opposite side and hit motor-cycle. In this accident Chandrasen Singh received grievous injuries and he later on succumbed to the injuries. The motor-cycle was, also, damaged. Deceased Chandrasen Singh, at the time of his death, was aged about 46 years and was earning Rs. 623/- permonth. (3). This claim petition was contested by the respondents. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after trial, partly decreed the claim of the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 38,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 5% per annum. (4). Dissatisfied with the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, the claimants filed an appeal before this Court. The appeal filed by the claimant-appellants was partly allowed and the amount of compensation of Rs. 38,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, was enhanced to Rs. 91,800/-. The learned Single Judge also, enhanced the rate of interest from 5% per annum to 12% per annum. It is against this judgment dated 4.2.1988 passed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant insurance company has preferred this appeal. (5). No appeal has been filed by the owner or driver of the tanker. (6). The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the insured is only to the extent of statutory liability of Rs. 50,000/- as per the provisions of Sec. 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. No appeal has been filed by the owner or driver of the tanker. (6). The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the insured is only to the extent of statutory liability of Rs. 50,000/- as per the provisions of Sec. 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has placed reliance over : National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jugal Kishore Ors. (1). (7). Learned counsel for the respondent-claimants, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and further submitted that this ground was neither taken by the appellant in the written statement nor any evidene to this effect was produced by the insurance company before the trial Court and, therefore, in the absence of any pleading, the appellant cannot be allowed to agitate this ground of its limited liability. (8). We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (9). Sub-section 2(a) of Sec. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that in the case of a goods vehicle, the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs.50,000/- in all. (10). It has been held by the Supreme Court in : National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jugal Kishore & Ors. (supra) as under :– ``Comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on this score, however, do not mean that the limit of the liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 95 of the Act. For this purpose a specific agreement has to be arrived at between the owner and the insurance company and separate premium has to be paid on the amoun t of liability undertaken by the insurance company inthis behalf. Likewise, if risk of any other nature, for instance, with regard to driver or passengers etc., in excess of statutory liability, if any, is sought to be covered it has to be clearly specified in the policy and separate premium padi therefor. (11). The ground regarding the limited liability was not taken by the appellant before the trial Court. It does not find place in the written statement nor any evidence was produced by the insurance company. (11). The ground regarding the limited liability was not taken by the appellant before the trial Court. It does not find place in the written statement nor any evidence was produced by the insurance company. The insurance company though filed a detailed written statement but this objection was not taken by the appellant. The insurance company, also, produced in evidence NAW 1 Shri Murli Manohar Sippy - the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Ajmer. He, in his statement recorded during the trial, also, did not state that the liability of the insurance company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. (12). It is true that the strict rule of pleadings cannot be invoked in the claim petition but it is desirable that the claimants must known the case of the respondents, which they have to meet. Neither there was any pleadiig nor was there any issue frmaed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal regarding limited liability of the insurance company. If an objection regarding the limited liability would have been taken by the appellant insurance company before the trial Court then the claimants would have an opportunity to lead evidence to show that extra-premium was paid or any extra contract to cover unlimited liability was arrived at between the parties. In the absence of such pleadings and the evidence on record, the appellant insurance company cannot be allowed to agitate this grtound in the appeal. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, right in holding the appellant insurance company liable to indemnify the full claim. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, rtherefore, does not requie any interference. (13). In the result,. we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.