( 1 ) THE appellant herein The New India Assurance Company Limited is resisting the claim of a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 awarded by the Tribunal below as against the claim of Rs. 3,20,000 to the respondents-claimants, who are widow, minor daughters and major sons of the deceased P. Balamuni Reddy aged about 48 years. The deceased is an employee of the Gram Panchayat drawing a monthly income of Rs. 1,440/ -. At About 7. 50 a. m. on February 5, 1984 he was knocked down by the bus APD 3711 at a Bridge near Cuddapah town and the deceased died on the spot. As a result, the respondents-claimants laid the claim. The Court below recorded the finding that the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle APD 3711. This finding is based on the direct evidence. Accordingly, I confirm that the death had occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver.

( 2 ) THE only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is what is the liability of the Assurance Company (Appellant ).

( 3 ) THE contention of Sri K. Subbarao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the paragraph 7 of the counter it was pleaded by the Company that the appellant is liable only as per the policy. No attempt was made by the respondents (claimants) to have the policy filed in the Court below. Therefore, by operation of the provisions of S. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act; 4 of 1989 (for short the act ) the liability of the appellant should be limited to Rs. 50,000/ -. The Court below has committed grievous error in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- as against the Assurance Company. It is stated that the appellant filed before this court the policy along with memorandum of grounds of appeal and the clauses therein disclose that the maximum liability is Rs. 50,000/ -. This claim was resisted by Sri S. Hanumaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants contending that the policy now filed into the court cannot be received as evidence. Unless the appellant satisfies the requirement of Order XLI. Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure showing the grounds on which the appellant could not file the policy into the court below and unless this court finds that it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of deciding the point, it cannot be received as additional evidence. It is further contended that in column 17 of the claim statement, the claimants have specifically mentioned the name and address of the insurer. Beyond that it is not expected of by the claimants, but the claimants mentioned the details of the policy because it is not within their knowledge. Therefore, their claim cannot be rejected on the ground of want of material particulars. As regards the policy, it is the duty of the Assurance Company (appellant) to mention all the particulars in their counter and their non-liability is to be established not only by pleading but also by producing the policy and other evidence. In this case, no such attempt has been made. Therefore, there is no illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal below awarding the amount in question. It is also stated that they filed cross-objections for the balance amount.

( 4 ) THE first question, therefore, is whether the amount awarded by the Court below is just, fair and reasonable for the loss of dependency. Admittedly, the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,440/ - per mensem at the time of the accident and he was aged about 48 years and he will be in service for ten years more. Therefore, what will be the loss in his earnings for the ten years and thereafter his pensionary benefits. In this case, the Court below has taken all the facts and circumstances into consideration and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- in total. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of their case, I find that the amount awarded by the Court below for the loss of dependency is just and fair and there is no illegality in awarding the said amount.

( 5 ) THE next