T.H.B.Chalapathi, J.

1. These two matters arising out of claims for compensation under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , were referred to a Full Bench as it was felt that there were conflicting opinions on the admissibility of the copy of the insurance policy in evidence and the onus to prove the terms of the policy.

2. In First Appeal from Order No. 1154 of 1988, the learned judges of a Division Bench of this court noticed the conflicting views taken by two different Division Benches in Jullundur Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Mrs. Raj Wali [1989] 1 PLR 259 ; [1989] ACJ 901 (P&H) and Oriental Insurance, Co, Ltd. v. Clandrawati [1990] 68 Comp Cas 79 (P&H) ; [1989] 1 PLR 240 in regard to the production of the copy of the insurance policy and the exhibition thereof by the court without any formal proof of the execution of the policy. The learned judges also observed that another point of "similar importance regarding the onus to prove the terms of the policy whether the onus is on the insured or on the insurance company" also arises. Therefore, their Lordships directed the papers to be placed before the Hon ble Chief justice for deciding the matter by a la