H. K. RATHOD, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned advocate Mr. S. B. Parikh for learned advocate Mr. R. H. Mehta on behalf of appellant - Insurance Co. ( 2 ) THE notice issued by this Court is served to respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and respondent Nos. 2 and 5 remained served as expired. ( 3 ) THE civil application for stay remained pending before this Court about more than 15 years and not decided by this Court. Present appeal is also not admitted. So, entire matter remained on admission and more than 15 years have passed. The total amount under challenge is Rs. 89,800/- and appellant's share comes to Rs. 44,900/ -. Therefore, such a small amount is under challenge and matter remained pending at admission stage for about 15 years, though stay is granted by this Court on 21. 6. 1993 in CA No. 983 of 1993 and thereunder, the matter remained as it is. ( 4 ) THE appellant Insurance Co. has challenged the award passed by MAC tribunal, Nadiad at Exh. 69 in MACP no. 1199 of 1985 dated 5. 6. 1991 whereby claims Tribunal has awarded Ks. 89,800/-compensation with 12% interest in favour of respondent claimant with a direction to opponent Nos. l to 5 to pay jointly and severally the amount of compensation of rs. 89,800/- with 12% interest to the respondent claimant. The opponent Nos. l and 2 and respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 shall pay the aforesaid amount in the ratio of 50-50%. ( 5 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Parikh submitted that accident occurred on 18. 4. 1985 when claimant was working as a labourer in tractor No. GUU-7412 and said Tractor was driven by opponent No. 6 - Kantibhai A. Parmar, at about 9. 15 p. m. claimant and opponent No. 6 were going on Borsad-Anand road with Tractor No. GUU 7412. As soon as they reached near village Vehra, the opponent No. 6 saw that the Tractor of Ford company bearing No. GUH 7490 which was driven by opponent No. 3 in full speed rashly and negligently and without any light, at that time ST Bus No. GRT 6659 was coming from back side of the tractor in which claimant was travelling. That ST Bus was driven by opponent No. 1 and driver of tractor in which the claimant was travelling gave signal to ST Bus driver for not negotiating over-take but he did not pay any attention to the signal of the driver of tractor no. GUU 7412 and negotiated over-take in full speed. At that time opponent No. 6 was coming from opposite side without any light which dashed with the ST Bus and in that accident, rear portion of the bus dashed with the tractor and trolley of Tractor no. GUU 7412. With the result, this tractor turned turtled and fell in a ditch with a result present claimant and others sustained injuries on the part of their bodies. Even according to claimant, the accident has taken place due to fash and negligent driving of driver of tractor No. GUH 7490 and driver of ST Bus No. GRT 6659 and opponent No. 2 being the owner of ST Bus and opponent No. 4 being the owner of tractor No. GUH 7490 and opponent No. 5 being the Insurance Co. of this tractor. The opponent No. 5 is a present appellant -Insurance Co. ( 6 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Parikh submitted that written statement was filed by present appellant as referred in Para. 4 of the award which is quoted as under : "4. The opponents Nos. 5 and 8 have submitted their written statement at Exh. 36 inter-alia denying the facts mentioned in the application. It is the case of the Oriental insurance Co. that the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident, have committed breach of the conditions of the policy and the applicant was travelling as a passenger in the tractor; that the owners both the vehicles had no valid permit for which the vehicles were used at the time of the alleged accident; that the alleged acciuent has taken place because of the sole negligence of the driver of the ST Bus and therefore, the Insurance Co. opponent Nos. 5 and 8 are not liable to pay any amount of compensation. " 6. 1 However, learned advocate mr. Parikh submitted that a specific contention was raised by appellant insurance Co.- opponent No. 5 in written statement as referred in Ground No. 7, which is quoted as under : "7. opponent Nos. 5 and 8 are not liable to pay any amount of compensation. " 6. 1 However, learned advocate mr. Parikh submitted that a specific contention was raised by appellant insurance Co.- opponent No. 5 in written statement as referred in Ground No. 7, which is quoted as under : "7. It is submitted that a specific plea has been taken by the appellant in its written statement, which reads as under : ' (4) That the following statements are not admitted. (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) That the drivers of both the tractors alleged to have been involved in the accident had valid driving licence covering the period of accident and vehicle were insured with us covering the period of accident. " 6. 2 Learned advocate Mr. Parikh also submitted that in absence of insurance policy in respect to Tractor No. GUH 7490 which was not insured with the appellant -Insurance Co. , the claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the Insurance Co. to pay the compensation to the claimant. He relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 1986 (2) ACJ 807. Therefore, relevant ground No. 8 is quoted as : "8. The Tribunal erred gravely in not considering the judgment of this Hon'ble court in the case of New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Modi N. M. And others reported in 1986 (2) ACJ 807, wherein it has been held by this Hon'ble Court that it is the duty of the owner of the vehicle to produce the policy or the duty of the claimant and without the policy on record, no award can be passed against the appellant - Insurance co. " ( 7 ) BEFORE the claims Tribunal, on behalf of present appellant - Insurance Co. , learned advocate Mr. N. B. Dave had appeared. The issues are framed by claims Tribunal vide exh. 31 and thereafter, question of negligence has been examined 50-50% and thereafter, quantum has also been examined by claims Tribunal. ( 8 ) IN this appeal, learned advocate mr. Parikh has not challenged the finding of negligence of the claims Tribunal and also not challenged the quantum which has been awarded by claims Tribunal. The only contention is raised that Tractor No. GUH 7490 is not insured with the appellant insurance Co. but Tractor No. GUU 7412 is insured with the it. Parikh has not challenged the finding of negligence of the claims Tribunal and also not challenged the quantum which has been awarded by claims Tribunal. The only contention is raised that Tractor No. GUH 7490 is not insured with the appellant insurance Co. but Tractor No. GUU 7412 is insured with the it. The claims Tribunal has exonerated the driver of Tractor No. GUU 7412 from negligence. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Parikh submitted that learned advocate Mr. N. B. Dave, who had appeared before the claims Tribunal, has filed one affidavit on 20. 2. 1993 just in support of delay condonation application and averments made in the affidavit that due to his error, appellant - Insurance Co. has taken the decision not to prefer any appeal in this matter and to concur on the ground that vehicle in question was insured by it. Thereafter, delay has been condoned by this Court. ( 9 ) IN light of this background, learned advocate Mr. Parikh submitted that though contention was raised in written statement by the appellant - Insurance Co. but, claims tribunal has not considered it and therefore, claims Tribunal has committed gross error. He also raised contention that insurance policy was also not placed on record by claimant and owners have also not given the details. Therefore, policy in respect to tractor No. GUH 7490 was not on record before the claims Tribunal. Therefore, in absence of policy, no order of compensation can be passed against the appellant -Insurance Co. . The view has been taken by this Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Modi N. M. And others that liability of Insurance Co. without proof of insurance and claimant as well as the owner failed to give details of insurance and Insurance Co. could not trace the policy for want of particulars of insurance and specifically deny that the vehicle was not insured with it on the date of accidnt and Tribunal passed award against the Insurance Co. , whether insurance Co. is liable. The answer is given in negative because the Insurance Co. was not able to trace its records for want of necessary information, it cannot be said that it wanted to avoid the liability; the passing and sweeping observations against the insurance company found not proper. , whether insurance Co. is liable. The answer is given in negative because the Insurance Co. was not able to trace its records for want of necessary information, it cannot be said that it wanted to avoid the liability; the passing and sweeping observations against the insurance company found not proper. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, according to him, this court has held that in absence of the policy which is not on record in respect to Tractor no. GUH 7490, the appellant - Insurance co. should not be held liable to pay compensation to the claimant. He also submitted that in case alternative if amount is to be paid to the claimant then such amount can be permitted to Insurance Co. to recover from the owner of the Tractor no. GUH 7490. Except that, no other contention is raised by learned advocate mr. Parikh before this Court. ( 11 ) I have considered the contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Parikh and also perused the award passed by the claims tribunal. The written statement filed by the appellant - Insurance Co. as referred in para. 4 but, this contention was not reflected in Para. 4 that vehicle Tractor No. GUH 7490 is not insured with the appellant -Insurance Co. The issues are framed by the claims Tribunal at Exh. 31 where Issue No. 2 is "whether the applicant is entitled to compensation ? If yes, what amount and from whom ?" At the time of framing said issues, the advocate of the appellant -Insurance Co. must have brought to the notice of the claims Tribunal that this vehicle Tractor No. GUH 7490 is not at all insured with the appellant - Insurance Co. and no insurance policy is produced on record by claimant and owner of Tractor no. GUH 7490. But at the time of framing the issues also, no such care has been taken by advocate of the Insurance Co. , who appeared before the claims Tribunal bringing it to the notice of the claims tribunal that Tractor No. GUH 7490 is not insured with the Insurance Co. and no policy is on record. ( 12 ) TWO tractors are involved in the accident; one is Tractor No. GUU 7412 and another is GUH 7490. Out of two tractors, according to insurance Co. , one Tractor no. GUU 7412 is only insuredwith the appellant - Insurance Co. and no policy is on record. ( 12 ) TWO tractors are involved in the accident; one is Tractor No. GUU 7412 and another is GUH 7490. Out of two tractors, according to insurance Co. , one Tractor no. GUU 7412 is only insuredwith the appellant - Insurance Co. and other tractor is not insured with it. I have also perused entire award, nowhere this contention has been specifically raisedby advocate of insurance Co. before the claims Tribunal. The damage caused to claimant because of the accident receiving injury and he become 100% impotent as per evidence of dr. Kothari. Now, to raise contention before this Court first time that Tractor No. GUH 7490 is not insured with the Insurance Co. and there was no policy on record, therefore, claims Tribunal cannot pass any order against the appellant - Insurance Co. . When the opportunity was available to the appellant - Insurance Co. to bring to the notice of the claims Tribunal all these facts, the appellant - Insurance Co. remained silent. If the claims Tribunal has committed any error then it is a duty of the lawyer to bring to the notice of the claims Tribunal, so the claims Tribunal can take effective steps at the relevant time calling the details from the owner of the Tractor NO. GUH 7490 about the details of Insurance Co. and on that, the claimant at least should not suffer, if necessary step is taken by insurance Co. before the claims Tribunal. Therefore, according to my opinion, merely raising the contention in written statement is not enough. If the Insurance Co. is serious about it then such contention must have to be substantiate by leading proper evidence on record before the claims Tribunal. The appellant - Insurance Co. has not led any oral evidence of the officer concerned to prove their contention that Tractor No. GUH 7490 is not insured with present appellant insurance Co. but no such efforts have been made and no one examined on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Co. before the claims tribunal. Not only that no affidavit is filed by the appellant - Insurance Co. of any officer that after verifying the record this tractor is not insured with the appellant -Insurance Co. Therefore, the conduct of the appellant - Insurance Co. is such the claims tribunal passed an award against the appellant - Insurance Co. before the claims tribunal. Not only that no affidavit is filed by the appellant - Insurance Co. of any officer that after verifying the record this tractor is not insured with the appellant -Insurance Co. Therefore, the conduct of the appellant - Insurance Co. is such the claims tribunal passed an award against the appellant - Insurance Co. and then, to raise this contention before this Court and therefore, same cannot be permitted to ; raise for the first time before this Court. ( 13 ) IT is also necessary to note that affidavit filed by learned advocate mr. N. B. Dave, which was in support of delay condonation application, which is also perused by this Court but, nowhere averments is made in the said affidavit that this contention was raised before claims tribunal that Tractor No. GUH 7490 is not insured with the Insurance Co. which has been brought to the notice of the claims tribunal. So, in view of this fact, when such contention no doubt raised in written statement but this contention was not brought to the notice ofclaims Tribunal and not only that, such contention is not proved by Insurance Co. by leading proper evidence on recordthat Tractor No. GUH 7490 is not insured with Insurance Co. , then naturally claims Tribunal has relied upon the evidence of claimant and passed an award in favour of claimant with joint and several liability of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 including theappellant - Insurance Co. For that, according to my opinion, claims tribunal has not committed any error in passing such award in favour of respondent claimant. The decision which has been relied by learned advocate Mr. Parikh in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Modi n. M. is depend upon the facts of that case. Here, the appellant - Insurance Co. had appeared and not raised particular contention by pressing before the claims tribunal that vehicle in question is not insured with the Insurance Co. No such document also advanced by advocate of the insurance Co. So, facts of the reported case and facts of this case are altogether different. If the Insurance Co. has brought to the notice of the claims Tribunal that tractor No. GUH 7490 is not insured with the Insurance Co. but thereafter no steps have been taken by owner, claimant and claims Tribunal then learned advocate mr. So, facts of the reported case and facts of this case are altogether different. If the Insurance Co. has brought to the notice of the claims Tribunal that tractor No. GUH 7490 is not insured with the Insurance Co. but thereafter no steps have been taken by owner, claimant and claims Tribunal then learned advocate mr. Parikh can get support from reported decision, otherwise not. But, according to my opinion, facts of present case are altogether different and therefore, that decision is not helpful to learned advocate mr. Parikh. ( 14 ) THE question which has not been raised before the claims Tribunal except in written statement but not pressed into service before the claims Tribunal, then such contention should not have to be raised before this Court first time. The contention which is not found from the award of the claims Tribunal then presumption is that no such contention is raised by Insurance Co. before claims tribunal. The remedy is for the Insurance co. to approach the claims Tribunal for review and to point out that though such contention was raised and not decided or dealt with by claims Tribunal. Though learned advocate Mr. N. B. Dave has filed affidavit in support of delay condonation but, thereafter no stepshave been taken by that advocate by filing proper application before the claims Tribunal to point out that though such contention was raised and not decided by the claims Tribunal. Meaning thereby that it is presumed that no such contention was raised by advocate mr. N. B. Dave before claims Tribunal that this vehicle is not insured with the appellant- Insurance Co. ( 15 ) RECENTLY, the Apex Court has decided the similar aspect in case of Mohd. Akram ansari v. Chief Election Officer and Ors. , reported in 2008 AIR SCW 416. Para 14 of said decision is reproduced as under: "14. In this connection we would like to say that there is a presumption in law that a Judge deals with all the points which have been pressed before him. It often happens that in a petition or appeal several points are taken in the memorandum of the petition or appeal, but at the time of arguments only some of these points are pressed. It often happens that in a petition or appeal several points are taken in the memorandum of the petition or appeal, but at the time of arguments only some of these points are pressed. Naturally a Judge will deal only with the points which are pressed before him in the arguments and it will be presumed that the appellant gave up the other points, otherwise he would have dealt with them also. If a point is not mentioned in the judgment of a Court, the presumption is that that point was never pressed before the learned Judge and it was given up. However, that is a rebuttable presumption. In case the petitioner contends that he had pressed that point also (which has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment), it is open to him to file an application before the same learned Judge (or Bench) which delivered the impugned judgment, and if he satisfies the Judge (or bench) that the other points were in fact pressed, but were not dealt with in the impugned judgment, it is open to the concerned Court to pass appropriate orders, including an order of review. However, it is not ordinarily open to the party to file an appeal and seek to argue a point which even if taken in the petition or memorandum filed before the Court below, has not been dealt with in the judgment of the Court below. The party who has this grievance must approach the same Court which passed the judgment, and urge that the other points were pressed but not dealt with. " ( 16 ) RECENTLY also, Apex Court has delivered judgment on 21st November, 2008 in case of Md. Rafique @ Cliachu v state of West Bengal reported in 2008 (15)SCALE page 15 wherein it was observed by apex court that "if a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party while the mater is still fresh in the minds of the Judges to call the attention of the very judges who have made the record. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the mater must necessarily end there. It is not open to the appellant to contend before this Court to the contrary. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the mater must necessarily end there. It is not open to the appellant to contend before this Court to the contrary. "relevant discussion made in para 5 of said decision is reproduced as under : "5. It would be logical to first deal with the plea relating to absence of concession. It is to be noted that the appellant conceded certain aspects before the High Court. After having done so,it is not open to the appellant to turn around or to take a plea that no concession was given. This is clearly a case of sitting on the fence and it is not to be encouraged. If really three was no concession,the only course open to the appellant was to move the High Court in line with what has said in State of maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak ( 1982 (2) SCC 463 ). In a decision bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar mill (P) Ltd. ( 2003 (2) SCC 111 ) the view in the said case was reiterated by observing that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. if a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party while the mater is still fresh in the minds of the judges to call the attention of the very judges who have made the record. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the mater must necessarily end there. It is not open to the appellant to contend before this Court to the contrary. The above position was highlighted in Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani ( 2003 6 scc 595 . " 1. 7. Recently, similar aspect has been considered by Apex Court in case of mantoo Sarkar v. The Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 136. Para. 9 and 10 of said decision is reproduced as under : "9. The above position was highlighted in Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani ( 2003 6 scc 595 . " 1. 7. Recently, similar aspect has been considered by Apex Court in case of mantoo Sarkar v. The Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 136. Para. 9 and 10 of said decision is reproduced as under : "9. Section 166 (2) of the Act reads as under :-"166 - Application for compensation (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant. " 10. The said Act is a special statute. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal having regard to the terminologies used therein must be held to be wider than the civil court. A claimant has a wide option. Residence of the claimant also determines jurisdiction of the Tribunal. " 18. This aspect has been considered by apex Court in case of Jagvir Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in 2007 (5)Supreme 214 . Relevant discussion made by apex Court in para 4 of said decision is reproduced as under: "4. If really there was no concession, the only course open to the appellants was to move the High Court in line with what has been said in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr. ( 1982 (2) SCC 463 ). In Bhvnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2002 AIR SCW 4939, the view in the said case was reiterated by observing that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court,are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. (2002 AIR SCW 4939, the view in the said case was reiterated by observing that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court,are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judge who has made the record. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. It is not open to the appellants tocontend before this Court to the contrary. " 19. In view of the aforesaid observations made by Apex Court consistently, according to my opinion, from the award no such contention found place raised by Insurance co. before the claims Tribunal. Therefore, presumption is that no such contention was raised by the appellant - Insurance Co. before the claims Tribunal. Therefore, such contention cannot be permitted to be raised first time before this Court. Therefore, contention raised by learned advocate mr. Parikh cannot be accepted and same are rejected. Therefore, there is no substance in the present appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. 20. Today, this Court has disposed of first appeal and, therefore, no order is required to be made on civil application for stay, therefore, civil application for stay is disposed of accordingly. Interim relief granted by this Court on 21. 6. 1993 stands vacated. (Appeal disposed of)