1. In thisappeal, the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the insurance company is that the liability of the insurance company was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000 but the learned single judge has erroneously held that the insurance company would be liable for the entire amount awarded as compensation, which is Rs. 1,44,000.

2. It may be observed that the insured and the insurance company filed a joint written statement before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in which it was pleaded that the liability of the insurance company was limited to the extent provided under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Following issue No. 3 was framed by the Tribunal: “3. Whether the liability of non-petitioner No. 3 is limited to the extent provided under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, N.P. 3. Thus, the burden of issue No. 3 was placed on the insurance company, non-petitioner No. 3, before the Tribunal. No evidence was led by either party in respect of issue No. 3 nor the insurance policy or a copy thereof was produced. The Tribunal passed an award for a sum of Rs. 50,000. On appeal, the learned single judge enhanced the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 1,44