The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the insurance company to produce the insurance policy as evidence to determine the quantum of liability under the Motor Vehicle Act.

( 1 ) THE appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by way of present appeal has come before this Court against the impugned judgment and order dated 21st December, 1990 in Suit Nos. 154/84 and 156/84 both decided by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, New Delhi (in short MACT)

( 2 ) THE case of the appellant company, in short, is that the vehicular accident occurred on the morning of 21st January, 1984 between one ambulance of the M. C. D. (respondent No. 8 herein) bearing registration No. DLP 5056 and the bus bearing registration No. DLP 6966 owned by one Ramesh Chander (respondent No. 6 herein ). Four applications for compensation under Section 110a of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (in short MVA) were filed before the learned MACT, New Delhi against the appellant being the insurer of the bus DLP 6966, respondents 6 and 7 being owner and driver respectively, and respon- dent No. 8 being the owner of ambulance DLP 5056. Respondents 1 to 5 being the widow, children and parents of the deceased Manwar Singh.

( 3 ) BOTH the suits were clubbed together and Suit No. 154/84 was treated as the main case. In Suit No. 154/84 and Suit No. 156/84 deceased Manwar Singh Rawat was travelling as passenger in the bus which is the vehicle in question before the proceedings. Respondent No. 6, owner of the bus also contested the case but had not raised specifically averments in his written. statement as to whether the liability of the insurance company was unlimited or whether he had, paid additional premium nor he filed the original policy before the MACT. It is the case of the appellant that respondent No. 6, owner of the aforesaid erring vehicle No. DLP 6966 did not appear in the witness box to claim that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited. In the written statement filed by the insurance company, the appellant has taken a specific defence that its liability was limited. The appellant, however, despite due diligence could not file the policy before the Tribunal as the policy docket was untraceable in the office of the company. In the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has so opined:

"though the defence was raised by the insurance company that its liability was limited. However, no evidence whatsoever have been produced by the insurance company inspite of repeated opportunity given for producing the evidence that their liability was limited. As such hold that the liability of the insurance company in this case was unlimited. "

( 4 ) THE learned counsel finally concluded that in view of the fact that no evidence was given by the appellant herein in their cases and while deciding the issue, compensation amount of Rs. 15,000. 00 based on no fault liability under Section 92-A of the MVA was awarded to the petitioners 1 and 2 being the legal heirs of the deceased towards compensation amount which had already been received by the petitioners and as such no further amount except Rs. 15,000. 00 already awarded could be given to the petitioners which amount was payable by respondent No. 1-M. C. D. and respondent No. 4-United India Insurance Company.

( 5 ) MR. Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant has filed an application (C. M. No. 1619 of 1991) under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to permit the appellant insurance company to produce the true copy of the Insurance Policy No. 40702/ 24/1/214/83 on the court record by way of additional evidence to prove that the liability of the company qua passenger was limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000. 00 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as provided in Section 95 (2) (d) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also filed a copy of the insurance policy. In paragraph 4 of the said application which is duly supported by an affidavit, it is stated by the appellant that it has cogent reasons in support of his contention as to why he could not file the copy of the insurance policy during the course of the hearing before