Judgment This appeal filed by the appellant/ insurance company is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1985 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No.133/1977 by which decree for Rs.1,00,000/-towards damages with costs was passed with interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of the plaintiff. 2. This court passed a separate order dated 25.1.2012 for refusal of adjournment and decided to proceed with the appeal on merits. 3. Perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court shows that the plaintiff had claimed damages in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-for the accidental death of her daughter Saida Khan aged about 19 years. Saida Khan had come to Nagpur and Kamptee for performing dance in the year 1976 and when she was being carried to Shantinagar on scooter, she was hit by a truck which was insured with the insurance company and in which she died. Plaintiff / claimant i.e. mother of the deceased was examined and owner of the truck was also examined who proved that there was a comprehensive insurance policy of the vehicle involved in the accident. The civil court considered entire evidence and came to a conclusion that Saida Khan was hit by the truck and was killed. Thereafter, while deciding quantum of compensation the trial court found that the plaintiff was entitled to damages in the sum of Rs.1,00,00/-due to death of her daughter who was earning member by performing dance at various places on demand. Finally civil court assessed damages and awarded Rs.1,00,000/-with 6% interest thereon. Insurance company being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree had preferred this appeal before the court in the year 1987 which was finally registered as First Appeal No.423/1993. 4. Consideration : I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the civil court. I have also gone through the evidence on record and reasons given by the trial court for accepting evidence. Following point arises for determination in this appeal: 1) Whether the civil court committed an error in decreeing suit against appellant/ insurance company when allegedly it had the limited liability of Rs.50,000/-by way of indemnity? ...No. 5. It is not in dispute that the truck was insured with the appellant/ insurance company. Following point arises for determination in this appeal: 1) Whether the civil court committed an error in decreeing suit against appellant/ insurance company when allegedly it had the limited liability of Rs.50,000/-by way of indemnity? ...No. 5. It is not in dispute that the truck was insured with the appellant/ insurance company. The only ground on which the insurance company had filed the appeal is that the liability of the insurance company was only limited to Rs.50,000/-. This court is therefore, required to examine the said ground which is ground no.1 in the appeal and even the second ground is to the same effect. I have perused the issue which was framed by the trial court. There is no issue whatsoever framed in the trial court in relation to the appellant/ insurance about the limited liability of the insurance company to the extent of Rs.50,000/-only. The appellant insurance company never raised such issue before the trial court even during the course of argument before the trial court. The appellant insurance company did not at all adduce any evidence to testify that it was having only a limited liability. The appellant / insurance company neither filed any document nor proved them to sustain their ground about its limited liability. In the absence of any evidence before the trial court, I do not find any fault with the trial court in holding insurance company liable for the damages along with defendants jointly and severally in the light of the above discussion. Hence I answer point framed by me above in the negative. 6. In the result, I make the following order: ORDER 1) First Appeal No.423/1993 is dismissed. 2) No order as to costs.