P. C. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balasore has awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 21,000/- to the claimant/respondent No. 1 and, the insurer has been directed to bear the liability, Aggrieved with the award, the insurer has filed this appeal. ( 2 ) THE facts involved in this case are simple. On 3-3-1988 the claimant / respondent No. 1 was going on his Moped when he was knocked down by atruck bearing registration No. ORB 2864 of which the respondent No. 2 is the owner and the appellant is insurer. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained fracture of his right leg. Alleging that the accident was due to rashness and negligence of the truck driver, a sum of Rs. 60,000 / - was claimed as compensation from the owner and the insurer of the vehicle. ( 3 ) THE owner and the insurer resisted the claim and denied their liability on the ground that the accident was not on account of any rashness and negligence of the truck driver. The owner (respondent No. 2) submitted that as the vehicle was insured, the liability, if any, was to be saddled with the insurer. The insurer, however, did not deny the fact of insurance. ( 4 ) ON a finding that the accident was due to rashness and negligence of the truck driver, the Tribunal held the claimant entitled to compensation from the owner and the insurer of the truck. Accordingly, an award of Rs. 21,000/- was passed in favour of the claimant and against the owner and the insurer. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the insurer contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was in error in returning a finding that the vehicle in question was insured with it. He further submits that in the absence of any medical evidence, the Tribunal erred in believing the claimant's version and awarding a sum of Rs. 21,000/- as compensation. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on the case of Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramakrishna Das, 1993 ACJ 668. He further submits that in the absence of any medical evidence, the Tribunal erred in believing the claimant's version and awarding a sum of Rs. 21,000/- as compensation. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on the case of Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramakrishna Das, 1993 ACJ 668. The learned Counsel for the claimant/ respondent No. 1 on the other hand, submits that in absence of any plea that the vehicle was not insured with the appellant, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant. His further submission is that the insurer cannot challenge the award on merits. 5a. The first question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the finding that the vehicle was insured with the appellant is proper. For this purpose, it is necessary to make reference to the pleadings. The averments in column 16 of the claim petition reads thus :"name and address of the insurer of the vehicle :m/s. Oriental Insuranceco. Ltd. , Represented by the D. M. , Buxibazar, Cuttack. Policy No. 2/1469 valid up to 18-8-88. " The only averment in the written statement of the appellant which has some reference to the fact of insurance is contained in paragraph-4 which reads thus:"4. That the petitioner mentioned about the policy No. 2/1469 represented by the Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Buxibaza. r, Cuttack covering the interest of Sri Sukumar Behere owner of vehicle bearing Regd. No. ORS 2864 subject to certain terms and conditions and limitations as to its use. " ( 6 ) THE owner, however, remained mum on the question of insurance. In view of the pleadings of the parties and by a reference to Ext. 5 which shows seizure of a certificate of insurance issued by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , the Tribunal held the appellant to be the insurer. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal sought not to have relied upon the contents of the seizure list and as the particulars of the policy were not furnished by the owner, the Tribunal erred in holding the appellant to be the insurer. ( 7 ) IT is no doubt true that there is no averment in the written statement of the owner that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant. ( 7 ) IT is no doubt true that there is no averment in the written statement of the owner that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant. This is, however, surprising because the primary custody of the original policy is always with the owner and it is primarily his duty to produce the policy or at least to disclose its full particulars, but failure of the owner to disclose the particulars of insurance, in the instant case, cannot come to the aid of the appellant, because it has not denied the fact of insurance in its written statement. When a specific averment is made in the claim petition mentioning the name of the insurer and the policy number, it becomes the duty of the insurer to verify the number of the policy mentioned in the claim petition and to give a specific reply to the said averment. In case the number of the policy mentioned in the petition is wrong or does not relate to the vehicle in question or does not, in fact, relate to the insurer who is alleged to have issued the policy, then it is expected that a specific reply to that effect will be given by the insurer. In case the number mentioned relates to another vehicle, then also, it becomes the duty of the insurer to file that particular policy to show that it relates to a different vehicle and not to the one involved in the accident. In case the insurer finds that the number mentioned does not at all relate to any policy issued by it, then it becomes its duty to plead this fact and also to adduce evidence to show that the number mentioned does not relate to the policy issued by it. In the instant case, the averment that the vehicle is insured with the appellant is not denied. The averments in paragraph 4 of the written statement can, under no stretch of imagination, be considered as a denial. On the contrary, it can be considered as an implied admission. Though the paragraph is very clumsily worded, the meaning conveyed is that the insurance policy was issued subject to certain terms, conditions and limitation. The present case, therefore, is not one which should be remitted to the Tribunal for further inquiry on the question whether or not the appellant is the insurer. Though the paragraph is very clumsily worded, the meaning conveyed is that the insurance policy was issued subject to certain terms, conditions and limitation. The present case, therefore, is not one which should be remitted to the Tribunal for further inquiry on the question whether or not the appellant is the insurer. The case reported in 1993 ACJ 668 (supra) is clearly distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding that the vehicle was insured with the appellant, therefore, calls for no interference. ( 8 ) IN view of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of National Insurance Co, v. Magikhaia Dar, AIR 1976 Orissa 175, the question of quantum cannot also be agitated by the insurer nor can the award be assailed by it on merits. The direction, however, regarding levy of penal interest cannot be sustained and is accordingly, set aside. The interest will be payable at the rate of 6% as initially directed by the Tribunal. ( 9 ) BEFORE parting with the case, this Court would like to point out that it is the duty of the owner to produce the insurance policy which is in his custody. A mere mention of the name of the insurer is not sufficient. During the course of business, an Insurance Company insures hundreds of vehicles each day and, therefore, it is not possible to expect it to ascertain the fact of insurance by a mere mention of the vehicle number or the name of the insured or the insurer. In case the policy particulars are not supplied by the owner, there is no reason why an adverse inference should not be drawn against the owner and in such a situation, in my opinion, the Tribunal will be justified in saddling the liability on the owner. However, in the instant case, as fact of insurance is not denied by the insurer, it could not be proper to draw an inference against the owner. As the stands, no interference is called for in this appeal. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid except the modification with regard to the rate of interest as mentioned in para 8 above, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .