Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—FAFO No. 1029 of 2014 filed for enhancement of compensation arises out of the award rendered on 8.9.2014 in Claim Petition No. 114 of 1993 and FAFO No. 174 of 2015 arising out of the same award filed by the insurance company were heard together.

2. Sri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants in FAFO No. 174 of 2015 and Sri Mohd. Saeed, learned counsel for the claimants were heard at length. The owner of the vehicle i.e. opposite party No. 4 though being served, has remained unrepresented and the respondent No. 5 who died during pendency of the claim petition itself, stands deleted from the array of parties.

3. It is also informed that opposite party No. 2 during pendency of claim petition had died, therefore, the appeal would not be maintainable against him as well. In these circumstances, the surviving respondents are respondent No. 1, 3 and 4 out of whom 1 and 3 are the claimants whereas respondent No. 4 is the owner of the offending vehicle.

4. In enhancement appeal No. 1029 of 2014 Sri Mohd. Saeed represented the appellant whereas Sri Waqar Hashim argued on behalf of the insurance company, however respondent No. 2 i.e. the owner though being represented through Mohd. Arif Jaffri, learned counsel, despite a written notice, has chosen not to appear and the proceedings being fixed for hearing have thus proceeded treating the notice to be sufficient. The written notice served upon Sri Mohd. Arif Jaffri, is taken on record.

5. From the perusal of record it is seen that by order dated 29.8.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal, it was left open to the owner of the vehicle and the claimants both to place a copy of the insurance policy on record and this order has remained unchallenged throughout.

6. On the premise of the aforesaid order, Sri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company has argued that once the responsibility of filing the insurance policy was shifted upon the claimants and the owner, there was no occasion for the insurance company to have placed on record the relevant document although in the written statement filed before the Tribunal on behalf of the insurance company paragraphs 17 and 22 make a specific admission as regards the insurance of vehicle, which are reproduced as under:

“17. That in reply to para 17 of the petition it is admitted to the extent that the alleged vehicle was insured with the answering opposite party with liability limited to the extent as enumerated in the policy terms and conditions and as laid down in the Motor Vehicle Act.

22. That the contents of para 22 of the petition are specifically denied. It is stated that the petitioner has not only claimed and set excessive and exorbitant claim but the said claim is also unreasonable. It is stated that the claimant is not entitled to any claim/compensation from the answering opposite party, specially when the liability of the answering opposite party is limited to the extent as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also stated that the liability of the answering opposite party is limited in case of property damage of third party.”

7. Not only that the written statement had admitted the existence of the insurance policy of the vehicle in question but the evidence of one Jagdish Prasad, a clerical staff of the insurance company was also led before the Tribunal who in his examination-in-chief stated that the document of driving licence is filed as paper No. C-29 whereas the document of insurance policy is filed as Ga-30. As regards the driving licence, it was stated by the witness that the said document was obtained through a surveyor who is not a permanent employee of the company but apparently driving licence being valid, the same cannot be doubted. Insofar as paper Ga-30 (insurance policy) is concerned, the owner of the vehicle while conducting cross-examination did not ask any question although the policy filed did not relate to the owner’s vehicle. The st