The insurer must produce the insurance policy to limit liability; failure to do so results in full liability for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(C. Pratheep Kumar, J.)

All these appeals arise out of a same accident and hence they are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. On 28.5.1994 at about 7.15 a.m an accident occurred involving a Maruti car bearing registration No.CK1 3993 and an Ambassador car bearing registration No.KL-7C/2592 in which the passengers in both the cars sustained injuries and a passenger in the Maruti car succumbed to the injuries. One Razool was the owner of the Maruti car. The passengers in the Maruti car were one Niyas (driver), Imtiaz (minor), one Salim (died in the accident) and Jeena Rani (wife of Salim). One Francis is the owner of the ambassador car while its driver was one Abbas. The passengers in the ambassador car were Mohammed Rafeeque and K.K.Pareed Kutty. United India Insurance Co.Ltd, is the insurer of the maruthi car, while National Insurance Co. Ltd. is the insurer of the ambassador car.

3. The owner of the Maruti car Razool filed OP(MV) 1349/1994 before the MACT, Mavelikkara, claiming compensation for the damage sustained to the Maruti car and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal. Niyas, the driver of Maruti car who sustained injuries in the accident filed OP(MV).1376/1994 which was dismissed on the ground that the accident occurred due to his own negligence. Aggrieved by the above Award, he preferred MACA 2528/2009 and the same was already dismissed by this court. Minor Imtiaz sustained injuries in the accident and in that respect, OP(MV).1378/1994 was filed by the Power of Attorney holder of the guardian of the minor. The Tribunal dismissed the above OP holding that the father of the minor was the Power of Attorney holder of the owner of the Maruti car, Razool.

4. Aggrieved by the above dismissal of the OP, MACA 2532/2009 was filed. 4. The legal representatives of deceased Salim namely, his parents and siblings filed OP(MV).1379/1994 in which the wife was impleaded as additional 4^th respondent. The said O.P was allowed by the Tribunal. Against the said award none of the parties filed any appeal. The wife of Salim, Smt. Jeena Rani filed a separate OP(MV).1425/1994 claiming compensation in respect of the death of her husband. The said OP was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that she was awarded a part of the compensation in OP(MV).1379/1994. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dismissing OP(MV).1425/1994, she preferred MACA 2323/2009. United India Insurance Co.Ltd, the insurer of the Maruti car filed MACA 1693/2008 against award of the Tribunal in OP(MV).1379/1993. Jeena Rani in her personal capacity filed OP(MV) 1380/1994 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her as a passenger in the maruti car. The said OP was allowed by the Tribunal and a compensation of Rs.3,75,500/- was awarded against the insurer of the maruthi car. Aggrieved by the above award, United India Insurance Co.Ltd, the insurer of the Maruti car preferred MACA 1694/2008.

5. The driver of the Maruti car Abbas filed OP(MV).981/1994 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Muhammed Rafeeq and K.K.Pareethkutty, the passengers in the Ambassador car filed OP(MV) 383/1995 and 385/1995 respectively, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them. Awards passed by the Tribunal in the above three OPs were not challenged by any the parties.

6. In the common award, there is specific finding by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Niyas, the driver of the Maruti car. It was in the above context OP(MV)1376/1994 filed by Niyas was dismissed by the Tribunal. Similarly, the claim of Razool, the owner of the Maruti car, in OP(MV)1