JUDGMENT : Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. I Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also Mr. L R Das, assisted by Miss M Chakraborty, learned counsels appearing for the respondents-claimant. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 21/12/2011 passed in MAC. CASE. NO. 23 of 2007 wherein and where-under, the learned Tribunal had awarded the compensation of L 8,00,000/- lakhs which is to be paid by the appellant-company i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Shillong-1. This appeal is taking up along with the cross-objection. 3. This Court passed an Order dated 21/3/2013 allowing the respondent-claimant to raise by way of cross-objection the claim in respect of payment of interest on the award as well as the claim to make enhanced compensation on the basis of documents which are said to have been proved in accordance with Law in the appeal preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company. 4. The fact sufficient for deciding the present appeal as well as cross-objection is briefly noted. The respondent-claimant i.e. Shri Gaybreanath Khongwir was an employee of Khongwir Service Station, Khanapara as a driver of the Tata Indigo bearing registration No. ML-05-D-5531. It is also an admitted case of both the parties that the said Tata Indigo is insured with the present appellant i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Shillong-1. While the claimant respondent was driving the said vehicle i.e. Tata Indigo bearing registration No. ML-05-D-5531 met an accident at 9th miles Khanapara on 29/3/2006, and as a result of the said accident, the claimant-respondent was unconscious and taken to International Hospital Guwahati for treatment. One Dr. S.P. Bhattacharjee who was serving as a specialist at International Hospital, Guwahati, treated the respondent-claimant Shri Gaybreanath Khongwir. As the condition of the respondent-claimant who suffered from multiple facial bone fracture was very serious, he was advised to be treated at the very advanced Hospital and accordingly as per the advice of Dr. S.P. Bhattacharjee, who had treated the claimant-respondent, respondent-claimant along with 3 relatives and Dr. S.P. Bhattacharjee went to the Apollo Hospital, Chennai for further treatment. For the treatment at the Apollo Hospital, Chennai the claimant-respondent had incurred huge expenditure. The claimant-respondent also had produced the vouchers and bills for the expenditures incurred during his treatment at Apollo Hospital, Chennai and those were Ext. 1, Ext. 2 and Ext. 5 to Ext. 48. S.P. Bhattacharjee went to the Apollo Hospital, Chennai for further treatment. For the treatment at the Apollo Hospital, Chennai the claimant-respondent had incurred huge expenditure. The claimant-respondent also had produced the vouchers and bills for the expenditures incurred during his treatment at Apollo Hospital, Chennai and those were Ext. 1, Ext. 2 and Ext. 5 to Ext. 48. The total amount claimed in the claim petition i.e. MAC. CASE. NO. 23 of 2007 filed by the respondent-claimant was only L.8,02,194/- (Rupees eight lakhs two thousand one hundred ninety four) only. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company also filed the written statement in the MAC. CASE. NO. 23 of 2007 before the learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shillong. In the written statement filed by the appellant respondent, there is no pleading that as 2 (two) other vehicles i.e. truck and bus were also involved in the accident wherein the claimant-respondent was the victim, the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant-respondent because of the said motor accident on 29/3/2006 should not be borne by the appellant-Insurance Company. However, in the Para No. 3 of the written statement, the appellant-Insurance company pleaded that the claim case is not maintainable in the present form, and the claimant could have approached the Commissioner for grant of compensation. The claim case is also bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties such as the owner, driver and insurer of those vehicles and the particulars of those vehicles are not disclosed by the claimant in his claim petition. 6. The appellant-Insurance Company also did not obtain the leave under section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act for taking defences on all grounds over and above the Limited defence provided in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. Regarding this point, Mr. I Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company strenuously contended that in case the Insurance Company is made one of the respondents in the claim petition voluntarily, the Insurance Company will be entitled to take all the defences all grounds without being restricted to the ground available under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 1988 and in support of his contention Mr. I Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent cited a decision of the Apex Court (3 Judges Bench) in United Insurance Company v. Shila Datta and Ors., (2011) 10 SCC 509 : 2011 (4) T.A.C. 874. 1988 and in support of his contention Mr. I Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent cited a decision of the Apex Court (3 Judges Bench) in United Insurance Company v. Shila Datta and Ors., (2011) 10 SCC 509 : 2011 (4) T.A.C. 874. Para 14,15 and 20 of the SCC in United Insurance Company case (Supra) read as follows:- 14. "When an insurer is impleaded as a party-respondent to the claim petition, as contrasted from merely being a noticee under Section 149(2) of the Act, its rights are significantly different. If the insurer is only a noticee, it can only raise such of those grounds as are permissible in law under Section 149(2). But if he is a party respondent, it can raise, not only those grounds which are available under Section 149(2), but also all other grounds that are available to a person against whom a claim is made. It, therefore, follows that if a claimant impleads the insurer as a party-respondent, for whatever reason, then as such respondent, the insurer will be entitled to urge all contentions and grounds which may be available to it. 15. The Act does not require the claimants to implead the insurer as a party-respondent. But if the claimants choose to implead the insurer as a party, not being a noticee under Section 149(2), the insurer can urge all grounds and not necessarily the limited grounds mentioned in Section 149(2) of the Act. If the insurer is already a respondent (having been impleaded as a party respondent), it need not seek the permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act to raise grounds other than those mentioned in Section 149(2) of the Act. 20. When a statutory notice is issued under Section 149(2) by the Tribunal, it is clear that such notice is issued not to implead the insurer as a party-respondent but merely to put it on notice that a claim has been made in regard to a policy issued by it and that it will have to bear the liability as and when an award is made in regard to such claim. Therefore, it cannot, as of right, require that it should be impleaded as a party-respondent. But it can, however, be made a party-respondent either by the claimants voluntarily in the claim petition or by the direction of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot, as of right, require that it should be impleaded as a party-respondent. But it can, however, be made a party-respondent either by the claimants voluntarily in the claim petition or by the direction of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act. Whatever be the reason or ground for the insurer being impleaded as a party, once it is a party-respondent, it can raise all contentions that are available to resist the claim." 7. In the present case, it is clear from the record that the appellant- Insurance Company did not obtain the leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act to take the defences on all grounds. However, as held by the apex Court in Shila Datta's (supra) the appellant-Insurance Company may raise all grounds of defence without being restricted to the grounds available to section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Tribunal vide Judgment and Order dated 21/12/2011 passed in MAC. CASE. NO. 23 of 2007 had awarded a sum of L 8 lakhs (rupees eight lakhs) as compensation for the expenses (medical) incurred by the respondent-claimant because of the said motor accident of the Tata Indigo vehicle bearing registration No. ML-05-D 5531 on 29/3/2006 at 6 AM at 9 miles Khanapara. The main grounds for assailing the Judgment and Order of the learned Tribunal dated 21/12/2011 in MAC. CASE. NO. 23 of 2007 are that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very high and unreasonable, and 2 (two) other vehicles were also involved in the accident wherein the respondent-claimant was the victim and also the driver of the truck and the driver of the bus had not been taken for prosecution in the claim case. As stated above, the appellant-Insurance Company, in the written statement did not mention that 2 (two) other vehicles were also involved in the said motor accident on 29/3/2006 and also did not even mention the particulars of the 2(two) vehicles other than the Tata Indigo bearing Registration No ML-05- D-5531 involved in the said accident i.e. on 29/3/2006. 8. In the absence of pleadings, the appellant-Insurance Company can not take this ground in the present appeal, inasmuch as the grounds could be taken only on the basis of pleaded pleadings and in the absence of pleaded pleadings the appellant could not make out new case in the appeal. 8. In the absence of pleadings, the appellant-Insurance Company can not take this ground in the present appeal, inasmuch as the grounds could be taken only on the basis of pleaded pleadings and in the absence of pleaded pleadings the appellant could not make out new case in the appeal. Accordingly, this Court is not accepting this ground that the other 2 (two) vehicles i.e. truck and the bus were also involved. 9. Mr. I Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company strenuously contended that the respondent-claimant had also included the amount spent by him as air fare of 4 persons i.e. Dr. S.P. Bhattacharjee and 3 relatives accompanied with him when he was taken to Chennai for treatment in the amount of expenses incurred in the medical treatment. There is no pleading in the written statement that the said Doctor i.e. Dr. S.P. Bhattacharjee and 3 relatives were not necessary to accompany the claimant-respondent to Chennai for medical treatment. The appellant-Insurance Company did not even put suggestion to the said Doctor (CW. 6) in his cross-examination that the four persons were not required to be accompanied with the claimant-respondent while he was taking to Apollo Hospital, Chennai for medical treatment. This court is also not accepting the submission of Mr. I. Ahmed learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company that the claimant-respondent had unnecessarily incurred huge amount as air fare of the said 4 (four) persons who had taken him to the Apollo Hospital, Chennai for treatment. As stated above, amount of compensation claimed by the respondent-claimant in the said MAC. CASE. NO. 23 of 2007 before the learned Tribunal was L 8 lakhs (rupees eight lakhs) only. The learned Tribunal by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21/12/2011 passed in MAC. CASE. NO. 23 of 2007 had granted the whole amount of compensation claimed by the respondent-claimant in the MAC. CASE. NO. 23 of 2007. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no materials for enhancing the amount of compensation as claimed by the claimant-respondent in the cross-objection and accordingly the cross-objection filed by the respondent-claimant is dismissed. 10. With the above observations, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.