Arun Bhansali, J.

1. This appeal & cross-objection is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.9.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 58,000/- as compensation to the claimant for damage to the Jeep and has held appellant-Insurance Company liable along with the driver and owner of the offending truck.

2. Cross-objection has been filed by the owner of the truck regarding the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal.

3. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the application for compensation was filed by the claimant that on 31.5.1994 at about 11:00 p.m. the jeep of the claimant was plying from Udaipur to Salumber when truck RRY-9413, which was plying from Salumber to Udaipur, came on the wrong side and struck the jeep, resulting in the employees travelling in the jeep getting killed there itself and the jeep being damaged. The present claim pertains to jeep where the compensation was sought to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-.

4. The application was opposed by the respondents and the Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the truck. Based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 58,000/- as compensation.

5. Regarding the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company, it was found that as the document Ex.-A/1 and Ex.-A/2 did not disclose the bifurcation of the amount of premium as claimed by the Insurance Company, the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited and consequently, the award as indicated herein-before was passed.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the finding of the Tribunal in so far as the limit of liability of the appellant-Insurance Company is concerned, is perverse, inasmuch as, the Tribunal has failed to consider the document available on record in true perspective and the provisions of Section 147(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') have been ignored and therefore, the award impugned deserves to be modified.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the truck submitted that the award in so far as the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company is concerned does not call for any interference, inasmuch as, the appellant-Insurance Company has failed to lead evidence in support of its contention and the documents Ex.-A/1 and Ex.-A/2 does not support the case of the appellant.

8. It was submitted that the finding on issue No. 1 pertaining to the negligence is also perverse, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the parties has not been properly considered and therefore, the award deserves to be set-aside, in any case the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company deserves to be rejected.

9. Reliance was placed on judgment in the case of Uma Ram & Another v. Union of India & Others, 2003 R.A.R. 256 (Raj.) and National Insurance Company v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Others, MACD 2008 (2) (M.P.) 608.

10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

11. A bare look at the document Ex.-A/2 produced by the appellant-Insurance Company indicates that the bifurcation of the amount of premium i.e. Rs. 1,335/- has been indicated under the heading premium calculation and same has been indicated as under:-

Act	Rs. 1245/-
Labour	Rs. 60/-
Driver	Rs. 30/-
Total	Rs. 1335/-

12. Despite the said specific indication made in the document Ex.-A/2, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that no bifurcation pertaining to the amount of premium has been indicated and therefore, the liability shall have to be unlimited, the said finding is on its face p