The court emphasized the necessity of producing evidence regarding insurance policy for determining liability under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. Being aggrieved with the award dated 5.3.1994, passed in Claim Case No. 6 of 1993 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilas - pur, the appellant insurer has filed this appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

2. The appellant insurer has also filed I.A. No. 1 of 2009 for production of additional evidence (insurance policy).

3. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - claimants have also filed their cross - objection vide M. (C.) P. No. 821 of 2005 for enhancement of amount of compensation.

4. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of deceased Umesh Kumar who died in the motor accident on 1.7.1992. They filed a claim application under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for awarding compensation of Rs. 5,74,000 on account of death of the deceased in the motor accident. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of offending tractor, bearing registration No. MP 26 - B 2052, by its driver. The deceased was working as a labourer in the tractor who was sitting by the side of the driver in the said tractor at the time of the accident. They further pleaded that the deceased was aged about 21 years and was earning Rs. 40 per day.
The owner and driver filed their written statement denying the contentions of the respondents - claimants. However, they pleaded that the tractor was insured with the appellant, therefore, if the claimants are held entitled to receive compensation, it should be directed to be paid by the appellant insurer. In their written statement, they mentioned the insurance policy number but they did not file any document in support of their contentions so as to fix the liability of the insurance company in terms of policy taken by the owner.
The appellant insurer has also filed its written statement. Though it admitted the factum of insurance in the relevant period but it also did not produce the copy of the insurance policy.
The learned Claims Tribunal held that since the factum of accident as well as insurance of the vehicle with the appellant insurer were admitted, therefore, the owner, driver and insurance company would be liable to pay compensation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - claimants.
The Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 68,000 as compensation to the claimants on account of death of their son Umesh Kumar in the motor accident. It also awarded interest at the rate of 12.5 per cent per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., from 8.8.1992, till its realization.

5. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant insurer, while arguing on I.A. No. 1 of 2009, submitted that the copy of the insurance policy was not filed either by the claimants or by the owner of the vehicle. However, the owner pleaded in his written statement that his vehicle was insured and he mentioned the cover note number of the policy in para 4. He further argued that the appellant insurer bona fidely admitted vide para 4 of its written statement that the tractor was insured with the appellant but the insurance policy was not filed by the appellant. He submitted that the policy could not be filed because only the cover note number was available with the insurance company. The insurance company made all efforts with due diligence to trace the insurance policy on cover note number but it could not trace it in time. He submitted that after passing of the award on 5.3.1994, the policy could be traced, therefore, the same has been put on record. He prayed for taking the policy into consideration. His submi