JUDGMENT : MARLI VANKUNG, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Johny. L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/claimant and Mr. Roshan Subedi,learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. The instant appeal is filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the Judgment & Award dated 05.07.2023, passed by the Ld. Member – cum – Presiding Officer, MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 21 of 2019, awarding a compensation of Rs. 31,83,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand) only to the claimant to be paid by the Insurance Company/appellant with an interest of 7% p.a from the date of filing the claim application in MACT Case No. 21 of 2019. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 15.02.2018 at around 3:00 p.m, one Tank Lorry (TATA) B/R No. MZ – 05 – 8834 belonging to the Managing Director, MizoFed, Aizawl (respondent No. 2) driven by Lalnithanga (respondent No. 3) met with an accident between Tlawng River and Mausen Village, and Lalhriatrenga (38 years), who was travelling in the said vehicle as a second driver, succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on 19.02.2018. The claimant/respondent No. 1 claimed compensation for the death of his son in MACT Case No. 21 of 2019, and claimed that his son Lalhriatrenga (late) was engaged as a driver by Lalnithanga/respondent No. 2 at a monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only and that the accident vehicle Tank Lorry (TATA) B/R No. Mz – 05 – 8834 was validly insured under policy No. 53060031170100000618, period of coverage being 05.05.2017 – 04.05.2018, and was thus covered during the period of the accident. 4. The appellant insurance company was arrayed as O.P No. 3 while the Managing Director, MizoFed was arrayed as O.P No. 1 and the driver of the vehicle Lalnithanga was arrayed as O.P No. 2. The opposite parties in the MACT Case No. 21 of 2019, filed their written statements wherein, the O.P No. 1 MizoFed Ltd. stated that the accident vehicle was validly insured during the time of the accident, and therefore, the insurance company/O.P No.3, being the insurer, was liable to pay the compensation. The opposite parties in the MACT Case No. 21 of 2019, filed their written statements wherein, the O.P No. 1 MizoFed Ltd. stated that the accident vehicle was validly insured during the time of the accident, and therefore, the insurance company/O.P No.3, being the insurer, was liable to pay the compensation. O.P No. 2 Lalnithanga, in his written statement admitted that he was the driver of the vehicle which was owned by the Managing Director, MizoFed Ltd. and that he was having a valid driving license at the time the accident. The O.P No. 3 insurance company /appellant contested the case by stating that the liability of the company was subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also challenged the monthly income of the deceased Lalhriatrenga, by pointing out that the instant claimant had previously filed MACT Case No. 53 of 2018, u/s 163 A of the MV Act, in the same caused of action, wherein, the income of the deceased Lalhriatrenga was taken as ‘as per notional income,’ and that the claimant had now contradicted himself regarding the income of the deceased Lalhriatrenga. 5. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: (i) Whether the present claim application is maintainable in its present form and style? (ii) Whether there was fault on the part of the driver or owner of the accident vehicle? (iii) Whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation and if so, to what extend and who is liable to pay? The claimant had examined 3 (three) witnesses during the course of the trial, who were duly cross examined by the opposite parties. Thereafter, on considering the evidence adduce during trial, the Ld. Tribunal decided all the issues in favor of the claimant, by awarding a compensation of Rs. 31,83,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand) only to the claimant to be paid by the insurance company/appellant with an interest of 7% p.a from the date of filing the MACT Case No. 21 of 2019 within one month from the date of the judgment & award. Aggrieved, the insurance company/appellant have filed their instant appeal. 6. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted that the Ld. Tribunal had erred in awarding the compensation amount of Rs. 31,83,000/- (Thirty One Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand) only which was held to be paid by the appellant. Aggrieved, the insurance company/appellant have filed their instant appeal. 6. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted that the Ld. Tribunal had erred in awarding the compensation amount of Rs. 31,83,000/- (Thirty One Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand) only which was held to be paid by the appellant. He submitted that the deceased Lalhriatrenga was stated to be the second driver, who was paid by the driver of the accident vehicle Lalnithanga/respondent No. 3. The learned counsel submitted that on perusal of the insurance premium, it is seen that the basic T.P covered is for LL to persons employed for operation and/or maintenance and/or loading and/or unloading, LL to paid driver conductor cleaner employed for operation. He submitted that the premium does not covered a person employed by the driver of the vehicle and thus the deceased being employed by the driver of the vehicle /respondent No. 3, was not employed by the MizoFed Ltd. That the premium would cover only those employed by the MizoFed Ltd./respondent No. 2. The learned counsel submitted that the deceased Lalhriatrenga can be considered only as gratuitous passenger and not a second driver since he was not employed by the insured/MizoFed Ltd. and since the deceased Lalhriatrenga was not cover by the insurance premium the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant/respondent. 2. 7 . The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that though not admitting his liability, even if any compensation amount were to be paid to the claimant, the monthly income of the deceased Lalhriatrenga stated to be Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only, was highly questionable and unacceptable. He submitted that the claimant had previously approached the Tribunal claiming compensation which was registered as MACT Case No. 53 of 2018 u/s 163 A of the MV, Act, wherein, the income of the deceased Lalhriatrenga was recorded as ‘as per notional income.’ Later the claimant withdrew the MACT Case No. 53 of 2018 and filed the MACT (k) No. 1 of 2018 by showing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only. This contradiction in the income creates doubt on the correctness of the income of the deceased Lalhriatrenga. 8 . 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only. This contradiction in the income creates doubt on the correctness of the income of the deceased Lalhriatrenga. 8 . The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the driver of the vehicle Lalnithanga/respondent No. 3 being an employed as a driver by the MizoFed Ltd. /respondent No. 2, cannot possibly afford to engaged another driver and pay him Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only and therefore, the income certificate exhibited as exhibit C – 3 cannot be accepted. He submitted that the Ld. Tribunal had erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased Lalhriatrenga at Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only. 9. Per contra, Mr. Johnny. L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the appellant company did not take the plea that the insurance policy premium did not cover a second driver before the Ld. Tribunal. He submitted that since this was not raised while considering the case before the tribunal, it cannot be raised in the appeal stage. He submitted that on the perusal of the issues framed by the learned Tribunal, it shows that this point was not framed for consideration by the Ld. Tribunal. He submitted that since the insurance company did not raised any objection regarding the premium cover before the learned tribunal, the claimant/respondent No. 1 and the insured/respondent No. 2 did not have the opportunity to clarify or give their defense regarding this point. 10. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Rama Kt. Barman Vs. Md. Mahim Ali and Ors., 2024 SCC 4083 wherein it was held that it is a well – settled principle of law that the Court at the appellate stage is supposed to decide the issues involved in the suit based on the pleadings of the parties and not raise or look into any new issues raised at the appellate stage. 11. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 further submitted that the respondent had also not disputed the income of the deceased Lalhriatrenga and that they did not adduce any evidence to disproved the income of the deceased. In support of his submission, he relied on the Judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs . Smt. Lalsangzuali and Ors. , MAC App. In support of his submission, he relied on the Judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs . Smt. Lalsangzuali and Ors. , MAC App. No. 3 of 2023 dated 12.06.2025 (para 13) wherein the coordinate Bench of this court had accepted the income of the deceased by observing that the testimony of the witnesses who had stated the income of the deceased which was not refuted or falsified by the by the opposite parties including the appellant. Under such circumstance, there was no reason to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal on the income earned by the deceased observed that MAC. App No. 36 of 2023 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Smt. Lalawmpuii & others dated 02.02.2021 and The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smti. Junmoni Chetry and Ors., in MAC. App No. 214 of 2014 (para 10). 12 . Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned for respondent No. 2 submitted that he will adopt the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1. He further submitted that if the Insurance Company was to take the defense that the deceased was not cover the premium, the insurance company should have produce copy of the insurance policy which was not done so by the appellant Insurance Company in the instant case. The learned counsel also cited the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. LTD, New Delhi Vs. Jugal Kishore & Ors. wherein it was held that in all such cases where the Insurance Company concerned wishes to take a defence in a claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence. 13 . I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the documents on record. It is seen that the appellant Insurance Company who was arrayed as respondent No.3, in its written statement had contested the case by stating that the liability of the company was subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, on the perusal of the evidence adduced by the claimant, it is seen that the claimant had exhibited EXT C-15, which is the insurance policy No. 53060031170100000618. However, on the perusal of the evidence adduced by the claimant, it is seen that the claimant had exhibited EXT C-15, which is the insurance policy No. 53060031170100000618. It is seen that in the cross examination of CW-1, no questions were asked regarding the coverage of the second driver by the Insurance company and the Insurance company did not adduce any evidence to that effect before the learned Tribunal. There was no mention that the second driver was not covered by the policy or that the deceased Lalhriatrenga was to be considered a gratuitous passenger. It is also seen that at the time of framing of issues, this issue was not framed for consideration before the learned Tribunal. 14. This court also finds that during the cross examination of the claimant witness/CW-2, the income of the deceased Lalhriatrenga was put to challenge only on the ground that in the previous application for compensation filed by the claimant, registered as MACT Case No. 53 of 2018, the income of the deceased was shown as “Notional Income”. The MACT Case No. 53 of 2018 was then withdrawn with a permission to file afresh. This court finds that this is no sufficient reason to doubt the income of the petitioner since, the previous MACT No. 53 of 2018 was withdrawn and it appears that it was later, filed on finding that they had mistakenly shown the income of the deceased as “Notional Income” and therefore, filed the corrected application in MACT Case No. 21 of 2019. 15. This court has also perused the evidence of OP No. 2/Lalnithanga, who stated that he was the driver by profession and owner of the accident vehicle. He was having a valid license at the time of the accident and the deceased Lalhriatrenga was employed as a second driver wherein, he paid the salary of the deceased Lalhriatrenga as per the transportation of the said petroleum product by driving the Tank Lorry. He paid the deceased Lalhriatrenga a salary of Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 5000/- as per the distance of the transportation of the said petroleum product and the deceased Lalhriatrenga used to transport the same about 5 to 7 times per month and therefore, his average salary was about Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) per month. He paid the deceased Lalhriatrenga a salary of Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 5000/- as per the distance of the transportation of the said petroleum product and the deceased Lalhriatrenga used to transport the same about 5 to 7 times per month and therefore, his average salary was about Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) per month. This Court also finds that during the cross examination of OP No. 2/Lalnithanga, this statement regarding the average monthly salary of the deceased Lalnithanga was not questioned or crossed the OP No. 3/Insurance Company. This Court therefore finds that the aspect regarding the monthly pay of the deceased Lalhriatrenga cannot be challenged at this belated stage and when it was not put to challenge before the learned Tribunal. 16. This court finds that the decision of the Apex court in Rama Kt. Barman Vs. Md. Mahim Ali and Ors (Supra) is aptly applicable in the instant case at paragraph 9 had observed as follows “Apart from the fact that none of the said substantial questions of law formulated by the High Court were either raised before the trial court of the appellate court, none of parties was given any opportunity of leading the evidence on the said issues. It is well – settled principle of law that the Court cannot create any new case at the appellate stage for either of the parties, and the appellate court is supposed to decided the issues involved in the suit based on the pleadings of the parties.” 17. In view of the above findings, this Court is of the considered view that there are no sufficient grounds for interfering with the Judgment & Award of the learned Tribunal in MACT Case No. 21 of 2019, awarding the compensation of Rs. 31,83,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakh Eighty Three Thousand) to the claimant which is to be paid by the Insurance Company/appellant with interest of 7% p.a. from the date of filing the application in MACT Case No. 21 of 2019. 18. Accordingly, MACT App. No. 1 of 2024 stands dismissed and disposed of as above.