G.C.Bharuka, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), only by the owner of the vehicle against the award dated 12.3.1992 passed by the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad, in Title (Motor Vehicle) Suit No. 58 of 1989.

2. The appellant is the owner of a truck bearing No. BRY 7343 which was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 2). The said vehicle met with an accident resulting in death of three persons including one Shiban Kumar Sarkar. The present case relates to the claim made by his widow, Runnu Sarkar (respondent No. 1). On appreciation of the evidence the court awarded a sum of Rs. 2,88,000.00 out of which the respondent insurance company was directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000.00 and the rest amount of Rs. 1,38,000.00 has been held to be the liability of the appellant. The Tribunal has not assigned any reason for making this apportionment.

3. Mr. Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has assailed the aforesaid apportionment by asserting that under the facts and circumstances of the case, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to fasten the entire liability on the insurance company. To substantiate his stand, he has referred to various paras Of the written statement filed by the appellant and the respondent insurance company. His main ground is that despite the furnishing of the policy number and other particulars in the written statement filed by the appellant, the insurance company has neither filed the insurance policy nor had anywhere pleaded that the insurance policy extended only to the minimum statutory liability. Therefore, according to him, the Tribunal ought to have drawn adverse inference and held the insurance company liable for paying the entire amount of compensation. In support of the said submission, he has placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements.

4. Mr. P.K. Sinha appearing for the respondent insurance company had first tried to counter the submission of the appellant by taking a plea based on onus of proof. According to him, since a copy of the policy had been handed over to the appellant it was for him to produce the same. On the contrary, Mr. Lal appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was only given a certificate of insurance and no policy as such was handed over to him. Moreover, according to him, the contesting respondent had not taken any such stand before the Tribunal.

5. The respondent insurance company has filed an application duly sworn by its Assistant Administrative Officer enclosing the documents of insurance with a prayer to admit those as additional evidence. One of the documents filed is a copy of the insurance policy described as true copy of the policy issued to the petitioner. It has been admitted that four copies of the insurance policies are prepared by the respondent company, one of which is issued to the owner of the vehicle and the remaining three are maintained in the office of the company. Despite several opportunities the respondent insurance company has failed to produce the original carbon copy of the policy on the plea that the same is not readily traceable in its office at Dhanbad.

6. On hearing the rival contentions, I am constrained to observe that in this case the insurance company is trying to defeat the claim of an insured policy holder by pleading procedural technicalities and withholding the primary document like the insurance policy and thereby dragging genuine claimants into prolonged, unwarranted and multiple litigation. It seems that the officers functioning in the insurance companies have taken the frivolous litigations as a part of their official duties and they seem to be deriving some pleasure in adopting such process, causing harassment and inconvenience to public having least care about wasteful expenditure of public money involved in such litigations and wastage of court hours which needs to be consumed in more fruitful pu