Madan Mohan Prasad, J.

1. This is an appeal under Sec.110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award made by the Claims Tribunal Purnea, dated the 11th of February, 1967.

2. It appears that respondent No. 1 was going in hie Fiat Car, and there was a collision between his car and a truck which was coming from the opposite direction. The truck aforesaid belonged to one Balobind Lohia and was being driven by Yadunath Sao. As a result of the collision the car of respondent No. 1 was badly damaged and further he himself received injuries and remained in hospital for sometime and even thereafter under the treatment of the Civil Surgeon of Araria. On account of this, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal aforesaid claiming a sum of Rs. 31610.00 from the respondents by way of special and general damages. The Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 4340.00 only as compensation and directed the payment of the amount aforesaid by the appellant Insurance Company. Hence this appeal.

3. The Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was as a result of the rash and negligent driving by the driver and the applicant before it was not at fault. It, therefore, found that the applicant was entitled to claim compensation. In respect of the quantum, however, it disallowed most of the items of claim but allowed the claim in respect of certain other items either in full or by reducing the amount claimed. One of the items which is relevant for the purpose of the present appeal is the claim against shock, anxiety and mental agony, and the claim was for a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 in this respect. The amount was found by the Tribunal to be exorbitant, and it was allowed after reducing it to a sum of Rs. 4000/-. It may be mentioned that the applicant has further claimed damages on account of grievous hurt and physical inability assessing the amount at a sum of Rs. 5000.00 and further damages on account of permanent scar marks on the body assessed at Rupees 2000/-. Both these claims were disallowed in view of the fact that the claim for shock, anxiety and mental agony had been allowed.

4. Neither respondent No. 1, who was the applicant before the Tri- bunal, nor respondents 2 and 3, who were opposite parties, filed any appeal against the order of the Tribunal. It is only the Insurance Company which has come up in appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised three points before me, firstly, that the claim should not have been allowed in view of the fact that the applicant before the Tribunal, who was driving the car, had no licence. It is said that the question had been raised in the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, but the Tribunal has failed to give any finding on that point. The second point raised is that the claim for damages for shock, anxiety and agony ought not to have been allowed. Thirdly, the award should have been made against the insured, namely respondent No. 2, and not against the appellant. I must state at the outset that none of these points is tenable or open to the appellant.

6. Firstly, having looked into the written statement filed by this appellant before the Tribunal. I find that there is no specific objection that the victim was driving his car without a licence and, therefore, even if it bad been open to the appellant to raise this point, it could not be raised for the first time in appeal. The point not having been raised, the Tribunal gave no finding on the point.

7. I may state that the point is not open at all to the appellant because, in view of Section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act), the Insurance Company can defend the action only on the grounds mentioned therein which are provided for in Clauses (a) to (c) thereof. It is well-settled that the Insurance Company is not in the same position as the owner of the vehicle to defend the action on all grounds unless the Insurance Company has reserved such a right to itself by the policy issued in favour of t