1. The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in so far as it limits the liability of the insurer only to Rs.50,000 is challenged, by the claimants in this appeal. The total compensation awarded is Rs.1,64,000.

2. The husband of the first claimant, the father of claimants 2 to 4 and son of claimant No.5 suffered injuries in a motor accident and succumbed to the same. The deceased was knocked down by a taxi car driven, owned and insured by respondents 1 to 3 respectively. The tribunal found that in all an amount of Rs.1,64,000 is due by way of compensation. Respondent No.3, the insurer was directed to pay Rs.50000 with interest and costs. The owner of the vehicle was directed to pay the balance.

3. Before the Tribunal the insurer had taken up a contention that the insurer's liability is limited to an amount of Rs.50000. No evidence whatsoever is available on this crucial aspect. The Tribunal in Para.7 of the award observed as follows:-

"The third respondents has admitted the insurance coverage, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is admitted that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.50,000. Therefore the 3rd respondent is bound to pay only Rs.50,000 and the balance has to be paid by the 2nd respondent."

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that no such admission was at any rate made by the claimants/ appellants herein. There was no evidence whatsoever on that aspect also. In these circumstance the Tribunal erred grossly in assuming that there was an admission on this crucial aspect and in proceeding to dispose of the claim on the basis of such alleged admission.

5. The available records have been perused. There is nothing to indicate that any such admission was made by the claimants or any other at any point of time. There is significant and crucial absence of evidence on that crucial aspect of limit of liability of the insurer.

6. It is trite that the burden is heavy on the insurer to plead and substantiate the contention that there are limits for coverage under the policy. That burden must certainly be discharged by the insurer. The claimants will not be in a position to make any satisfactory pleadings or adduce evidence on that aspect as they are third parties to the policy of insurance and have no access to such policy. At worst they can be blamed only for not calling upon the insurer/insured to produce the policy document. Though the insured can, if he wants, produce the policy document, he has not chosen to produce the same. The non-production of the policy document by the insured cannot also prejudice the rights of the claimants. The Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi v. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1988 SC 719 has given stress to the obligation of the Insurance Company to produce the policy of insurance for doing justice to the parties. A Division Bench of this Court in Chandran v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1989 (1) KLT SN 5) also has held that the insurer will be liable to pay the entire award amount, unless such limit of policy coverage is pleaded and established by satisfactory evidence.

7. Coming back to the facts of the case the policy document was, for obscure reasons not made available before the Tribunal. Even assuming that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act do not compel the statutory insurer to cover the entire liability of the insured to third parties/pendestrains, it cannot be disputed that a policy of insurance can cover larger liability than what is compulsorily coverable under the statute. In this view of the matter also the burden is certainly heavy on the insurer to produce the policy document before the court to satisfy the court that the liability of the insurer is limited and does not cover the entire liability to the claimants.

8. Before this Court on 3.12.1999 a schedule of the policy has been produced. Even here it is crucial to note that the policy document as such is not produced. No explanation whatsoever is of