Judgment S.Roy, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company under Sec. 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act for short) challenging the award. 2. Sultan Gani was travelling in a passenger vehicle, namely B.H.M. 1193. The vehicle met with an accident and he died. His legal representatives filed a claim, in which the Insurance Company, the owner and the driver were made parties. The Tribunal on the basis of the materials on record held that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 60,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1.9.1983 on the ground of death of Gani. The Tribunal directed that whole amount would be payable by the Insurance Company. 3. The Insurance Company has confined this appeal to the question whether in view of the provisions of Sec. 95 of the Act as it stood on 30th May, 1983, the date of accident, it could have been held by the Tribunal that its liability was Rs. 60,000 when the section provides that the liability will be Rs. 15,000. 4. It was not disputed on behalf of the parties that the relevant portion, of Sec. 95 of the Act with regard to quantum of compensation was amended with effect from 1.10.1982 and on 30th May, 1983 the date of accident, under the amended provision the liability of the Insurance Company was Rs. 15,000. 5. Mr. Dey learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, submitted that in view of paragraph 6 of the written statement filed on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, and paragraph 15 of the written statement filed on behalf of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal could not have directed the Insurance Company to pay the total compensation awarded only on the ground that the Insurance Company did not produce the Insurance policy. Mr. Anwar, learned Counsel for the claimants, submitted that in view of non-production of the policy, the Tribunal was correct in law in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. This contention of Mr. Anwar was supported by Mr. A.K. Sinha learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 (the owner). 6. Both the owner and the Insurance Company filed their separate written statements. But one of them led any evidence to show the extent of liability of the Insurance-Company under the policy. The claimants Could not have produced the Insurance Policy. 7. Anwar was supported by Mr. A.K. Sinha learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 (the owner). 6. Both the owner and the Insurance Company filed their separate written statements. But one of them led any evidence to show the extent of liability of the Insurance-Company under the policy. The claimants Could not have produced the Insurance Policy. 7. There are large number of decisions of different High Courts in which it was held that, if the Insurance Company does not produce the insurance policy to prove that its liability was confined to the extent limited by the Act, it cannot be allowed to submit that the court must confine its liability as provided in Sec. 95 of the Act, For non-production of the insurance policy, the claimant cannot be allowed to suffer because it will be very difficult for him to recover any amount from the owner of the vehicle. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the Insurance Company as to what prevented it from producing the policy and proving it. The pleadings cannot take the place of evidence. 8. For the reason, aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the judgment of the Tribunal which has saddled the Insurance Company to the liability to pay the compensation. After I had dictated the judgment, Mr. Dey submitted that since in paragraph 6 of the written statement filed on behalf of the owner and in paragraph 15 of the written statement filed on behalf of the Insurance Company there is definite statement that the policy was with reference to Sec. 95(2) of the Act, the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the amount that is being made to pay in excess of Rs. 15,000. It is needless to say that if the policy was limited only to the provisions of the Act, i.e. Rs. 15,000 which was relevant on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company in this case, if so advised may recover the balance amount from the owner by intitating appropriate proceeding. 9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.