Judgment Ray, J.: 1. This disposes of by a common order, a modification application made by the Insurance Company and also the appeal preferred by it. The Award which went against the appellant was for a principal sum of Rs. 1,06,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim which dated 6.3.78. The Award was passed on 18.3.81 for granting compensation to the mother of the victim who was a 27 years old Diploma Holder Engineer. 2. In the beginning, after preferment of the appeal an order was passed granting stay upon deposit of Rs. 5,000/-. This deposit, according to the insurer, was made although later than within the time originally stipulated. By a subsequent order dated 2.8.95, since the earlier deposit had not been made in time, half the principal awarded sum, i.e., Rs. 53,000/- was directed to be deposited. On 6.12.95 this order was varied and the deposit which was called for was for the said sum, less Rs.5,000/-. This last order specifically made it peremptory and mandatory. The said balance sum of Rs. 48,000/- was never deposited. Instead the variation application was made alleging that the Insurance Company could never be asked to deposit more than Rs. 5,000/-. The reason in support of the modification application and of the appeal is one and the same. It is submitted that at the material time, the Act which was in operation was the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Under Section 95, sub-section (2) (b) of the said Act, a person under the circumstances of the victim, could not get from the insurer more than Rs. 5,000/-. Several cases were relied upon by the appellant but the case most important is that of (1) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishan Pal Singh & Ors. reported in 2000 (1) TAC 210 (sq, there the Supreme Court in Paragraphs 6 and 7 opined that the insurer's liability was limited to Rs. 5,000/-. 3. However, the specific limit of the above section was not made a subject of argument before the Tribunal. The A ward does not mention this as a• point of law argued before it at all. In the Memorandum of Appeal, the sum of Rs. 5,000/- as the outer limit is mentioned. 4. 5,000/-. 3. However, the specific limit of the above section was not made a subject of argument before the Tribunal. The A ward does not mention this as a• point of law argued before it at all. In the Memorandum of Appeal, the sum of Rs. 5,000/- as the outer limit is mentioned. 4. On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that although the said section imposes upon the insurer, the duty to issue an insurance which will at least cover the said sum of Rs. 5,000/-, yet there is nothing in that section which prevents an insurer from issuing a comprehensive policy which will cover compensation even larger than the said sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Drawing this important distinction between an Act only the accident policy and a comprehensive policy, the learned Advocate for the respondent-claimant relied upon the case of (2) Jugal Kishore & Ors. reported at AIR 1998 Supreme Court page 719. The Supreme Court there observed that in case the insurer wishes to take resort to the statutory limit, then the insurer Should produce the policy, showing that it is an Act only type policy. 5. Other cases were also cited for the respondents, including the case of (3) M/s. Kantilal & Bros., AIR 1979 Calcutta 152; and (4) Smt. Namita Das, AIR 2000 Calcutta 145, which were for the proposition that the insurer cannot challenge the quantum of damages. These cases are concerned with the assessment of quantum but the point raised here is about a statutory jurisdictional limit. Thus, these cases do not apply to the present argument; further in these cases, the important case of Captain Itbar Singh, 1958-65 Accident Claims Journal page I, was not considered and thus the discussion there might need modification. Be that as it may, in the absence of the policy being produced before the Tribunal, it would be wholly improper for the Insurance Company to urge for the first time as a point in the appeal that under the policy only the statutory limit of Rs. 5,000/- was payable. It is a mixed question of law and fact. The factual base is necessary which, however, is wholly absent in the present case. Thus, the modification application is dismissed. The appeal would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-deposit alone. 5,000/- was payable. It is a mixed question of law and fact. The factual base is necessary which, however, is wholly absent in the present case. Thus, the modification application is dismissed. The appeal would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-deposit alone. It also is liable to be dismissed on merits, because the only point urged by the insurer fails. As a result the Award of the Tribunal is upheld. The deposited sum, if any, with accrued interest be handed over forthwith by the learned Registrar General, Appellate Side to the claimant or the claimant's representative. The balance sum due under the Tribunal's Award be paid by way of Account Payee Cheque drawn in the name of Nirmala Haldar by delivery of it either to her or her legal representative. Upon encashment of the said cheque in due course the insurer's liability shall stand discharged. Unless payment is made of the balance sum along with interest within a period of twelve weeks from the date hereof, the principal sum shall carry an interest of 12% per annum instead of 6% and in case of such default, the insurer will be, in addition, liable to pay the costs of this appeal assessed at Rs. 12,500/-. If urgent certified xerox copy is applied for, the same should be made available to the parties on usual undertakings. Mazumdar, J.: I agree.