JUDGMENT Qureshi and Jha, JJ. 1. Aggrieved by the award passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 6 of 1982, dated 30.8.1986 the insurance company has filed this appeal. 2. The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the present non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5 filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the present applicant and others seeking compensation of Rs. 80,000/- on the ground that a motor truck bearing registration No. MPO 1543 owned by respondent No. 6 Joba Singh, driven by respondent No. 7 Shankar, whose name was deleted during the pendency of the appeal, and insured with the present appellant, dashed against one Laxminarayan who was going on his bicycle from Banganga to Polo Ground on the left side of the road in Indore. When he reached near the Gurudwara, the aforesaid truck No. MPO 1543 driven at a high speed and negligently by driver Shankar dashed against the deceased. Consequently Laxminarayan received serious injuries and was rushed to the M.Y. Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. The applicants are his legal heirs and were fully dependent on the earnings of Laxminarayan. That is why on various grounds compensation of Rs. 80,000/- was claimed. 3. Initially the driver and the owner of the truck contested the claim case, but later on they remained absent and the case proceeded ex parte against them, vide order of the lower Tribunal dated 4.4.1986. The present appellant, however, went before the lower Tribunal with a plea that the vehicle was not insured with the insurance company and that the driver was not holding a valid licence to drive the vehicle. The learned lower Tribunal framed five issues to decide the claim petition and held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and the applicants being dependent on the deceased, being his legal representatives, were entitled to the compensation of Rs. 63,000/- from non-applicant Nos. 1 to 3. The plea of the insurance company that the vehicle was not insured with the company was negatived by the lower Tribunal and the company was held liable to pay the compensation to the non-applicants. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award the insurance company has filed this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the insurance company, Mr. 1 to 3. The plea of the insurance company that the vehicle was not insured with the company was negatived by the lower Tribunal and the company was held liable to pay the compensation to the non-applicants. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award the insurance company has filed this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the insurance company, Mr. G.K. Neema, has confined his argument to the point that the lower court has erred in holding the insurance company liable to pay the compensation beyond Rs. 50,000/- which is the statutory limit to which the insurance company is liable and according to the terms of the insurance policy also the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 50,000/-. 5. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicants, states that the plea of liability of the insurance company was limited was not taken before the lower court and the insurance company has also not filed any document to show that the liability of the insurance company was limited. 6. Before this court the insurance company has filed an application for amending the written statement and also seeking permission to file the insurance policy by way of additional evidence. The ground on which the amendment is sought and permission to file the insurance policy is that when the case was pending before the lower court the insurance policy was not available with the company because a theft was committed in the company. In my opinion, this plea is an afterthought and nothing has been brought on record to show that actually how the theft had led the insurance company to plead before the lower court that the vehicle was not insured with the company and furthermore if the documents were stolen then when were they retrieved and at what point of time the insurance company came to know that the vehicle was insured. It appears that the insurance company before the Tribunal took deliberately a false plea to avoid its liability and when the award was finally passed it has come with the aforesaid applications. The application seeking the amendment as such is not bona fide and cannot be allowed. It appears that the insurance company before the Tribunal took deliberately a false plea to avoid its liability and when the award was finally passed it has come with the aforesaid applications. The application seeking the amendment as such is not bona fide and cannot be allowed. Similarly, the filing of the policy at such a later stage without any satisfactory explanation cannot be allowed to be taken on record and, therefore, both these applications deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 7. On perusing the record of the Tribunal and considering the respective arguments of the parties it is manifest that the insurance company did not claim that the vehicle was insured with the company but the liability of the company according to the terms of the policy was limited to Rs. 50,000/- and in absence of any plea on behalf of the insurance company in that behalf the Tribunal has rightly held that the insurance company was liable to pay the amount of compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. In a claim petition which is expected to be decided expeditiously the insurance company should always be cautious in placing the correct facts before the court and should not come forward with false pleas to delay the claim of the claimants or to defeat the claim made by the legal heirs of the deceased person. In the instant case if actually a theft had taken place, as is stated before us, in the office of the insurance company, the insurance company could very well go before the Tribunal with the correct facts. But instead of making any such statement pertaining to theft the insurance company just denied its liability on the ground that the vehicle is not insured with it at all and that plea was rightly held to be false by the Tribunal. As such the award of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence before the Tribunal. 8. In the abovementioned circumstances we find no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250/-, if certified.