Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.5.1996 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Dhanbad-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, thereby and thereunder a sum of Rs. 50,000 less the amount already paid along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of application was awarded to the claimants as against the insurance company. 2. The fact in short for the purpose of this appeal is that on 10.10.1987 Nagesh-war Bishwakarma, father of the deceased Ganga Prasad, and the deceased were going to shop for purchasing household materials but near Durga Mandir, Panch-garhi Bazar under Katras P.S. an Ambassador car bearing registration No. BHR 367 came with speed and the driver who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed against the deceased who was aged 7 years or so and that he died due to this accident. The claimants who are the parents of the deceased preferred aforesaid claim case as against the insurance company who is appellant here and also against the owner of the vehicle, namely, Devendra Singh. The insurance company preferred this appeal mainly on the ground that at the time of accident the vehicle was not at all insured and the policy number given in the court below consisting of only 10 digits, i.e., 4358213569 relates to a truck and not to a car and also belongs to another person. So as the vehicle was not insured, the insurance company is not liable rather the owner, i.e., respondent No. 3 is liable to pay compensation. 3. So the only question for consideration is if at all the vehicle bearing No. BHR 367 was insured at the relevant time. From the impugned judgment it can be said that from very beginning insurance company had taken the plea that the car which is responsible for the accident was not insured and the policy number furnished on behalf of claimants relates to a truck. So practically there is no evidence in the court below to show that the vehicle in question was insured. In that view of the matter, unless this fact is proved that the vehicle was insured, no liability for payment of compensation can be fastened on the insurance company. 4. So practically there is no evidence in the court below to show that the vehicle in question was insured. In that view of the matter, unless this fact is proved that the vehicle was insured, no liability for payment of compensation can be fastened on the insurance company. 4. Admittedly, there was an accident involving the car bearing No. BHR 367 and a boy died so the claimants in the court below are entitled to compensation. So far quantum of compensation which is only Rs. 50,000 had not been challenged. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that at the relevant time the respondent No. 3 Devendra Singh was the owner of the vehicle and so the claimants are definitely entitled to receive compensation from him. On the other hand, respondent No. 3 entered appearance and after conclusion of the argument yesterday an application supported with affidavit was filed today that respondent No. 3 purchased the vehicle on 1.8.1992 from one Bhola Singh and actually at the time of accident Bhola Singh was the owner and so Bhola Singh is responsible for payment of compensation. 5. Suprisingly this plea is being taken in this appellate court. Respondent No. 3 though was a party had not entered appearance before the Tribunal nor contested this fact that he was not the owner of the car. On the other hand, the claimants specifically claimed that this very respondent is the owner of the car. If at all respondent No. 3 purchased the car subsequent to the accident then he could have raised this plea in the court below. However, if this plea was not raised in the court below even then in this appeal when the respondent No. 3 appeared he could have filed a cross-objection against the finding of the Tribunal that he was the owner of the vehicle but that had not been done. In that view of the matter, only by filing a petition that respondent No. 3 was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident this fact cannot be accepted unless a cross-objection is preferred. So respondent No. 3 being the owner of the vehicle and as the vehicle was not insured at that time and so the claimants are entitled to realise the entire amount of compensation not from the insurance company but from the owner, i.e., respondent No. 3, itself. 6. So respondent No. 3 being the owner of the vehicle and as the vehicle was not insured at that time and so the claimants are entitled to realise the entire amount of compensation not from the insurance company but from the owner, i.e., respondent No. 3, itself. 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed as against the respondent No. 3 only but without any costs and the judgment and award of the court below is only modified to that extent.