JUDGMENT : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Insurance Company is in appeal against the award of compensation in T (M.V.) Case No.143 of 2015 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.45,52,556/- with interest @ 6% per annum has been saddled with the Insurance Company under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Cross Objection being C.O. No.34 of 2021 has been filed on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 2. It is argued that immediately after the accident, FIR (Exhibit 2) was lodged being Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No.362 of 2015 under Section 279 and 304A of the IPC on the basis of the fardbeyan of Constable 593-Kartik Mahto against the driver of a tanker bearing registration no. JH 17D 8720 namely Bablu Mandal son of Anand Mandal, wherein it was the specific statement of the informant in the FIR that the driver was caught immediately after the accident on the spot, however, since he was not having valid driving license therefore, the identity of the driver was changed to that of Yugal Prasad Mandal son of Pramod Mandal and charge sheet was submitted. 3. It is argued that cross objection has been filed on behalf of the claimants it appears that the claimants had appeared in this case on 18.06.2019, whereas cross objection has been filed on 03.09.2021 without filing any limitation petition for condonation of delay in filing the cross objection before this Court. Reliance is placed on Mahadev Govind Gharge & Others Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project Jamkhandi, Karnataka, (2011) 6 SCC 321 para 59. 4. I find force in the argument advance on behalf of the Respondents that this plea was not raised in the written statement before the learned Tribunal that Yugal Prasad Mandal was not the driver, but the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time of accident, was Bablu Mandal. In absence of any pleading in this part, no issue was framed with regard to change of identity of the driver. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, this Court is of the view that evidence beyond pleading, cannot be considered in a civil case. In absence of any pleading in this part, no issue was framed with regard to change of identity of the driver. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, this Court is of the view that evidence beyond pleading, cannot be considered in a civil case. The plea that Yugal Prasad Mandal was not the driver at the relevant time of accident, was not even pleaded during trial and therefore, this plea cannot be adverted to at this stage as the owner will be prejudiced and will have no opportunity to lead evidence on this point. 5. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 377 of 2016 accordingly dismissed. 6. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of claim, be remitted to the Tribunal and full and final payment of compensation amount will be made within six weeks of the order. 7. With regard to cross objection for enhancement of compensation, it is argued by the counsel that in the compensation awarded, the award of compensation under conventional head is a meagre one and not in accord with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 8. Law is settled that even in the absence of cross-objection this Court is not fettered from passing just and reasonable compensation. In this case under conventional head a compensation of only Rs 9,500/- is allowed which is enhanced to Rs 70,000/- 9. Cross-objection is accordingly allowed.