( 1 ) ALL these appeals arise out of one accident involving a limited question of the extent of the insurer s liability and whether claimants in LPAs (59, 60 and 61/1993) were liable to forego their 30% share of compensation because they had failed to plead driver and owner and insurer of the car involved in the accident. LPAs (59, 60 and 61/1993) are filed by claimants questioning forfeiture of their 30% share of compensation amount and the other set of appeals (nos. 90, 91 and 92/1993) are preferred by the Insurance Company pleading limited liability up to Rs. 50,000. 00.

( 2 ) ONE Sanjeev Kumar was driving his car no. HRH-24 with two others Shiv Singh and Sat Pal on 27/5/1979 when it was hit by a truck no. DLL-5052 coming from opposite direction. All the three sustained injuries and died in the process. Their LRs filed claim petitions which were resisted by the Insurance Company on the plea of its limited liability of Rs. 50. 000. 00. The company took the plea in its written statement but did not seek framing of any issue on this. Nor did it place on record any original copy, carbon copy or photocopy of the insurance policy alongwith or immediately thereafter. It also failed to call upon the insured to produce the original copy. It, however, produced an attested copy through its Branch Manager, R. K. Khanna (RW-1) who testified that this was the true copy of original policy no. 459680287 covering vehicle no. DLL no. 5052 for a period from 27/2/1979 to 26/2/1980 for a third party risk of Rs. 50,000. 00. He also stated that the original policy was issued under his signatures. He did not produce any other document or record to show that the company had not charged any extra premium from the insurer.

( 3 ) MACT relied upon his evidence and held the company s liability limited to Rs. 50,000. 00. It also found that accident had occurred because of contributory negligence of drivers of both vehicles and accordingly apportioned 70% liability on the truck owner/driver and insurer and 30% on the car owner/insurer.

( 4 ) CLAIMANTS filed (FAO nos. 11 /1989, 23/1989 and 24/1989) against this award and disputed that there was any contributory negligence by the deceased. They alternatively contended that assuming negligence could be attributed to Sanjeev kumar driving the car, it could not be so attributed to Shiv Singh and Sat Pal travelling in that car. They also urged that Insurer s liability was unlimited and that Tribunal had fallen in error in holding it limited to Rs. 50,000. 00.

( 5 ) FIRST Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence on record concurred with the tribunal s finding of contributory negligence and apportionment of liability into 70:30. But it disentitled claimants of car passengers Shiv Singh and Sat Pal also from receiving 30% of their compensation as they had failed to implead tort feasors of the car as party respondents and held that they would have to forego it in favour of tort feasors of the truck present before the court. The court, however, upset the Tribunal finding on the question of limited liability and held it unlimited. While doing so it substantiated it by sound and cogent reason which can be best appreciated by extracting the relevant portion of its judgment which reads as under:

"even though strict principles of Evidence Act are not applicable but at the same time one cannot loose sight of the fact that the document which the insurance company wants the court to rely must be either original or photocopy or at least office copy. Mark-A is prepared on a totally different form. Therefore, it cannot be called true copy of the original or of office copy. In the absence of the original or the office copy, no reliance can be placed on this attested copy of the insurance policy. It has not been explained as- to from which document Mark-A was compared. In the absence of any explanation, to my mind, mark-A must have been prepared from imagination. Mr. R. K. Khanna, RW-1, has not explained as to from where a