JUDGMENT : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the offending vehicle, and is directed against an award dated 30th September 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), 6th Fast Track Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur in MAC Petition No.125 of 1989 thereby awarding a sum of Rs.51,000/- as compensation for the injury suffered by the claimant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation. 2. Being dissatisfied, the insurer of the offending vehicle has come up with the present appeal. 3. Mr Mehta, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has criticised the award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that although his client had taken a pure question of law requiring no investigation of fact, the Tribunal below refused to go into that question. 4. It appears that in the written statement, although there was no averment regarding any breach of specified condition in the policy, at the time of argument, it was pleaded that the vehicle was used to carry passenger for hire or reward and as such, the Insurance company was not liable to pay the amount. It appears that the Tribunal has given the reason that no such defence was taken in the written statement and being not borne out by the pleading, no evidence can be laid either by way of examination-in-chief or by way of cross-examination. The Tribunal, therefore, did not accept this point. 5. Mr Mehta, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the policy of the insurance being an exhibit, his client was entitled to show from the policy itself that the vehicle was a carriage vehicle and that any passenger travelling there could not get the benefit of insurance for the death or injury suffered. According to Mr Mehta, the point involved being a pure question of law, the Tribunal below should have gone into that question. 6. I accept contention of Mr Mehta that if from the admitted documents relied upon by the claimant, the question sought to be raised can be investigated, the Tribunal can go into that question provided no further evidence is necessary. Accordingly, I propose to consider the insurance policy which is an exhibit in this case. 6. I accept contention of Mr Mehta that if from the admitted documents relied upon by the claimant, the question sought to be raised can be investigated, the Tribunal can go into that question provided no further evidence is necessary. Accordingly, I propose to consider the insurance policy which is an exhibit in this case. It appears that in the policy the vehicle has been described as commercial vehicle and nature of the vehicle is a loading jeep. It, however, appears that additional premium of Rs.120/- has been taken for L.L. to authorised non-fare paying passengers as per END IMT 14(b). 7. Therefore, it appears that the policy was a comprehensive one and not the mere Act policy but, at the same time, additional premium of Rs.120/- was taken for such additional passenger and in addition Rs.16/- for driver and cleaner. In the case before us, if specific defence was taken that the claimant was a non-fare paying passenger, the claimant could easily lead evidence controverting such allegation but having not taken such plea in the written statement, there was no occasion for the claimant to give evidence to controvert the defence now sought to be raised that he was not a fare paying passenger. 8. I, thus, find that the point sought to be raised before the Tribunal below or also before this Court cannot be permitted to be raised since it is a disputed question of fact. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal below. 9. The appeal is, thus, devoid of any substance and is dismissed. No costs. Appeal Dismissed.