Judgment R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 1-8-2005 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1505 of 1994. The short facts of the case in brief are that the original applicant had boarded in auto rickshaw No. GJ-7V-684 as passenger from Khambhat for going to his village Badalpur which was being driven by original opponent No. 1-driver-cum-owner in rash and negligent manner and while rickshaw was proceeding on Khambhat-Dharmaj Road, the driver had lost control and due to the same, the said rickshaw had turn turtled and dashed with minor Pravinsinh. On account of the said vehicular incident, the original applicant sustained grievous injury of fracture on his left leg besides other injuries on his person and was also operated in the hospital. Hence, the original claimant filed M.A.C.P. No. 1505 of 1994 before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the original claimant. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. This Court has heard Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned Counsel for the appellant. 3. The short question that arises for determination of this Court is, whether without raising any contention as regards to breach of conditions on the part of driver for not holding valid and effective driving licence, and consequently, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation before the learned Tribunal and the same has been raised in this appeal for the first time, whether the same can be entertained at the appellate stage? 4. The appellant was very much on record as opponent No. 2 before the learned Tribunal and he has filed the written statement vide Exh. 17 wherein almost the company has denied the allegations made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company has not taken any contention as regards to the fact that the driver who was driving the aforesaid rickshaw was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, and thereby, there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy, and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 5. On failure to take the aforesaid contention while contesting the aforesaid claim petition, for the first time, the said contention is raised before this Court by the appellant. 5. On failure to take the aforesaid contention while contesting the aforesaid claim petition, for the first time, the said contention is raised before this Court by the appellant. In this view of the matter, neither the claimant nor any other party to the proceedings were afforded any opportunity of leading evidence nor to prove whether the driver of the aforesaid rickshaw was holding valid and effective licence at the time of vehicular accident or not nor even any opportunity is given to lead any evidence in the nature of documentary or oral evidence to prove that driver was holding valid and effective driving licence. Not only that, it appears from the record and proceedings of learned Tribunal that the Insurance Company has also not sought for any permission under Sec. 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for contesting the claim on me point of breach of conditions so far. In absence of seeking permission for contesting the claim for breach of conditions and for want of taking the contention as regards that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence and breach of conditions cannot be raised at me appellate stage because it is the disputed question of fact and for resolving the dispute, the parties are required to give an opportunity of leading their respective evidence. Unless that exercise is allowed to be done, the dispute in question cannot be resolved. 6. The impugned award as well as proceedings of the case clearly indicate that as the Insurance Company has not raised the dispute before learned Tribunal and has not invoked the provisions of Sec. 149 of the Act and the fact that no point of determination has been raised by learned Tribunal as regards to alleged breach of conditions on the part of insured, whether the driver was duly licensed to drive the auto-rickshaw? In absence of the aforesaid point of determination, learned Tribunal has also not rendered any decision. Even, from perusal of the evidence on record also, the Insurance Company has also not tried to establish the aforesaid breach of conditions either by way of oral evidence or documentary evidence in support of the said aspect. On that count also, in absence of any material on record and resultant finding on record, the appeal cannot be entertained. Even, from perusal of the evidence on record also, the Insurance Company has also not tried to establish the aforesaid breach of conditions either by way of oral evidence or documentary evidence in support of the said aspect. On that count also, in absence of any material on record and resultant finding on record, the appeal cannot be entertained. Precisely, the dispute raised before this Court for the first time, is not the pure question of law and the same cannot be raised at the appellate stage. For me reasons recorded hereinabove, the appeal is devoid of any merits and the appeal on the aforesaid contention cannot be entertained at this stage. Therefore, the appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 1-8-2005 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1505 of 1994 stands confirmed. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.