D. P. S. CHAUHAN, A. C. J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of misc. Appeal No, 742 of 1998 (New India assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanhi Bai ). ( 2 ) ON 26. 12. 1993 at 5. 30 p. m. , Om prakash Khangar and Babu Lal Kori, who were labourers and were travelling in a tractor bearing registration No. MP 15-D 1583, died on account of accident due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor. The heirs of both the deceased persons have filed separately claim petitions, being claim Case No. 1 of 1994 and Claim Case no. 2 of 1994, which were decided by a common award dated 11. 2. 1998 by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Tikamgarh. The Claims Tribunal had granted the claim for a total sum of rs. 1,94,000 to Chhandi Khangar on account of death of Om Prakash Khangar in claim Case No. 1 of 1994 and also granted the claim for a sum of Rs. 1,62,000 to nanhi Bai on account of death of Babu Lal kori in Claim Case No. 2 of 1994. This award is the subject-matter of challenge by means of two separate appeals at the behest of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , i. e. , Misc. Appeal No. 741 of 1998 which relates to Claim Case No. 1 of 1994, and misc. Appeal No. 742 of 1998, which relates to Claim Case No. 2 of 1994. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has made two-fold submissions first, the driver of the tractor, who was driving the tractor at the relevant time, was minor and was not possessed of the valid licence on the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the second submission was that the tractor, which was used for agricultural purposes, was carrying gitti and also the deceased persons as labourers, which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. ( 4 ) SO far as the second submission is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has dealt with in para 39 of the award and has recorded the finding that the appellant had not filed the insurance policy and the appellant failed to establish that it was used for the purposes other than the purpose for which it was insured. ( 4 ) SO far as the second submission is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has dealt with in para 39 of the award and has recorded the finding that the appellant had not filed the insurance policy and the appellant failed to establish that it was used for the purposes other than the purpose for which it was insured. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that insurance cover note is filed and the cover note does not contain all the conditions of insurance policy. So far as the finding on this question is concerned, that cannot be interfered with. The first submission is that the person, who was driving the tractor, was a minor, which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such, the heirs of the deceased persons are not entitled to any compensation from the insurance company. ( 5 ) A written statement was filed on behalf of the insurance company and after filing of the written statement, the claimant amended the claim petition and impleaded one Raju Kori, son of Puran Kori in place of Suraj Kori, son of Charanjeet Kori and by means of amendment, the case set up was that Raju Kori was driving the tractor at the relevant time. The written statement was not amended after amendment of the claim petition and the case in the claim was not rebutted. So the insurance company did not lead any evidence in regard to the fact that Raju Kori was not driving the tractor and he was minor, at the relevant time, and also he was not possessed of any valid driving licence. ( 6 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the respondents. It is a settled principle of pleadings that what is not denied is to be treated as admitted. The insurance company was represented and a written statement was filed, but the amended pleadings in the claim petition were not denied. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal so as to warrant any interference by this court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .