The burden of proof regarding the limit of liability under the Motor Vehicles Act lies on the insurer, and presenting genuine and relevant evidence is crucial to establish liability.

PANWAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 21. 8. 1991 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Udaipur (hereinafter for short the Tribunal), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 in favour of respondents-claimants (hereinafter for short the claimants) and against the appellant.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that; on 19. 5. 87 at about 9 a. m. , deceased abhey Singh, driver of autorickshaw No. RRY 2062 was proceeding from the road leading to Fateh High School, Udaipur, at that relevant time, a bus No. RJY 4703 came from opposite direction which was driven rashly and negligently by driver respondent No. 5 Devi Lal, hit the auto-rickshaw. Due to this accident, the driver of autorickshaw Abhey Singh and other passengers of autorickshaw, viz. , Ram singh and Roop Singh sustained severe injuries and Abhey Singh succumbed to injuries. The legal representatives of deceased Abhey Singh filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 4,30,000 against the driver devi Lal, respondent No. 5, owner Mohan lal and the appellant insurer.

( 3 ) ON notice, the appellant insurer and owner of the vehicle involved in accident filed their respective written statements. Tribunal framed as many as four issues and by impugned judgment and award, granted compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the claimants and held the appellant insurer liable to pay the entire amount of award.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the impugned award, the appellant insurer has filed this appeal assailing its limits of liability. As regards finding of rashness and negligence as also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has not been challenged by either of the parties and as such it became final. The only grievance of the appellant insurer is that the accident in question took place on 19. 5. 1987 and on that day, the limit of liability of the insurer is to the extent of Rs. 50,000. Whereas, in the instant case, the learned Tribunal has awarded rs. 1,50,000 and held the appellant insurer liable for entire amount. He contended that the learned Tribunal fell in error in fastening the entire liability against the insurer. He contended that at the relevant time, the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 since repealed were applicable. As per section 95 (2) (b) (i), the appellant insurer is liable to the extent of Rs. 50,000. He contended that vehicle involved in accident was a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason or in pursuance of a contract of employment and as per section 95 (2) (b) (i), the liability in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, the limit is of Rs. 50,000 in all.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant filed an application under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code along with the true copy of insurance policy in respect of bus No. RJY 4703 for the period in question and prayed that the additional evidence be allowed to be produced on record of the appellate court. In the application under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure code, no valid and substantial reason for not producing this document before the tribunal has been assigned as envisaged under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure code. However, the learned counsel contended that the copy of insurance policy has already been filed before the Tribunal, though, not tendered in evidence and, therefore, he contended that this being public document, can be read in evidence.

( 6 ) I have perused the copy of the insurance policy filed by the appellant insurer along with the application under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, before this court and an original copy [c9/30] and carbon copy [c9/32] which were filed by the appellant before the Tribunal. Normally original policy should be with the insured (owner of vehicle) and not with insurer. Thus, it is not clear as to how appellant insure