( 1 ). The appellant-New India Assurance Company Ltd. , has assailed the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) primarily on the ground of its limited liability. According to appellant the Tribunal erroneously awarded the amount in excess of the statutory liability. The Tribunal also ignored certificate of insurance produced by the appellant which fully proved that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited.

( 2 ). In order to appreciate the challenge to the award by the appellant, the brief facts of the case are that on 3rd January, 1987 at about 10. 45 a. m. Dr. Geeta Ram Sharma aged about 58 years, was going on his Moped. When he reached at T-Point at Wazirabad Road, Maujpur Road Crossing, the Truck No. DBL-3744 driven rashly and negligently came from behind and hit his Moped. As a result of this accident Dr. Geeta Ram Sharma fell and the truck ran over him killing him at the spot. Deceased was a Lecturer. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,750. 00 per month plus earning from other sources. He left behind his widow and two minor daughters. His legal heirs filed claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act) claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. ten lakhs beside interest. Respondents i. e. Driver, Owner and Insurance Company contested the case. The Tribunal by the impugned award dated 11th December, 1989 held the liability of the Insurance Company to be unlimited. He further held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. This he fixed at 10% and 90% on the part of the truck driver. The income of the deceased was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 8,000. 00 per month. After making deductions on account of personal and other expenses, the economic to of the family was worked out to Rs. 4,000. 00 per month. Applying the multiplier of 12 years the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,76,000. 00 from which deduction of Rs. 57,060. 00 on account of 10% negligence on the part of the deceased was allowed. Thus the amount payable to the legal heirs of the deceased worked out to Rs. 5,18,940. 00.

( 3 ). In this appeal we are only concerned with the question of limited liability of the appellant. To establish limited liability Mr. Sabharwal, Counsel for the appellant placed heavy reliance on the certificate of insurance produced through Shri S. K. Malhotra (RW-3), Legal Assistant of the appellant-Company. The certificate of insurance was certified by an officer of the appellant to be true on the basis of register maintained by the appellant. Mr. Sabharwal contended that certified copy of the certificate of insurance Ex. RW-3/1 was admissible in evidence without any proof. It being a public document required no proof on its production. To support his argument he placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of United Insurance Company Ltd. v, Kamla Rani and Ors. , reported in 1997 0 ACJ 1081. According to him once the certificate of insurance was exhibited the Court ought to have held that the liability of this appellant was limited as held by this Court in the case of Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Veena Pruthi and Ors. , reported in 1989 0 ACJ 1163.

( 4 ). Mr. Sabharwal s main thrust is on the certificate of insurance. According to him the said certificate fully establishes and proves that liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000. 00. The Tribunal could not have created liability for the appellant beyond this amount mentioned in the certificate. The Tribunal fell in grave error by ignoring this document. I am in respectful disagreement with the interpretation given by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to a "public Document". According to Kamla Rani s case (supra) since the certificate of insurance was issued by the Governmental Company in performance of its statutory duties hence such a certificate has to be classified as public document. It was presumed by t