( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant requesting to fasten the liability on the respondent No. 2 insurance company and also to enhance the amount of compensation awarded on 12. 3. 2001 in m. V. C. No. 431 of 1993 by the M. A. C. T. at Mandya.

( 2 ) REGARDING first ground, it is argued for appellant-claimant that the Tribunal committed an error in not fastening liability with the insurance company. Learned counsel for the insurance company now submits that the vehicle had the valid insurance coverage as on the date of accident. Still important questions, namely, in spite of the fact that vehicle has insurance coverage, whether insurance company can plead before the Tribunal that the vehicle had no insurance coverage and whether adverse inference can be drawn against insurance company when it fails to produce record of insurance policy when called upon, more so, in the absence of participation in the proceedings by the owner of vehicle, require to be answered.

( 3 ) FIRSTLY, it may be noted that in para no. 16 of claim petition claimant pleaded that the policy for the vehicle was issued by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , Branch office, Finance House, II Floor, 19, Pattullecs Road, Madras-2. Further, in the cause title also, while showing name of respondent No. 2 as insurer, policy number with validity period from 1. 10. 1992 to 30. 9. 1993 had been specifically mentioned. In spite of said particulars, insurance company pleaded that the bus No. KA 11- 923 is not insured with it by respondent no. 1 owner and hence, it is not a necessary party to the petition and even if it is established that the respondent No. 1 is the owner of vehicle and the same is insured with it under policy, if any, given by it covering the risk as on the date of accident, its liability is only as per the terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. With this pleading on record, the parties went for trial.

( 4 ) DURING inquiry before the Tribunal, when the claimant filed an application under Order 11, rule 16 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code on 4. 12. 2000 supported by memorandum of facts, seeking a direction to the owner and insurance company to produce the policy referred to therein standing in the name of respondent no. 1 in respect of mini Tempo bearing no. KA 11-923, neither any objection was filed to it nor produced any record of insurance policy pertaining to said vehicle by any of them. There is no oral evidence so far as insurance policy is concerned. The Tribunal, relying on two decisions of this court held that the claimant has failed to prove that the vehicle in question had a valid insurance policy as on the date of accident as even not produced police notice also.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal had relied on the decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. N. S. Devaraja, ILR 1997 Kar 1061, wherein it is held that when the insurance company states in its objection statement that the vehicle was not insured, the burden of proving that the vehicle was insured, lay either on the claimant or owner of the vehicle. However, the facts, which are before this court now, were not available in that case in that, the particulars of insurance policy with validity period, etc. , were not available in that case. Apart from that, it may be noted that in the case on hand, column No. 16 of the claim petition was not specifically denied by the insurance company, though denied other columns specifically. It is true that in para No. 6 of its written statement, it has denied insurance coverage but, at the same time, it may be noted that when policy number was given by the claimant with validity period, it was necessary for the insurance company to come out with a specific plea that they (such particulars) do not pertain to that vehicle or, that they pertain to some other vehicle or, that even if they pertain to the vehicle, the policy insured does not cover the period of the accident and hence, it