JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This appeal by the insurance company has been preferred under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guna, passed on 4.2.1989, awarding a total sum of Rs. 1,89,000/- in favour of the claimants of deceased Pradeep Kumar, aged 25 years, who died in an accident on 17.12.1985. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company made an attempt to assail the award, firstly, on the ground that the vehicle involved had been transferred to Devilal alias Munnalal Tyrewala, respondent No. 5 and, secondly, the insurance policy was issued in favour of respondent No. 6, the original owner. It is contended that since the transfer was made of the vehicle without intimation to the insurance company its liability under the policy ceases. Attempt was made also to assail the award on quantum. 3. A Division Bench of this court to which one of us (Tej Shankar, J.) was a party, in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pratibha Rathi 1995 ACJ 819 (MP), it has been held that the limited defences open to the insurance company under Section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, would also be attracted in an appeal preferred against the award. The appeal on the question of quantum by the insurance company cannot, therefore, be heard. 4. So far as the ground about alleged transfer of vehicle during the period of policy is concerned, in Harcharan Singh v. Turza Bai 1995 ACJ 423 (MP), a view has been taken that it is not one of the defences available to the insurance company for avoiding its liability. In the case of transfer of the vehicle the insurance company may proceed against the original owner for reimbursement of the amount under the policy which it was required to pay under the award of the Claims Tribunal. Apart from the above legal position, there is no evidence on record to hold that the vehicle, in fact, was transferred. 5. Now survives for consideration the last argument advanced that the liability of the insurance company was limited to only Rs. 1,50,000/-. In the Claims Tribunal the complete policy containing all the conditions entered into between the parties had not been filed. The complete policy has now been filed in this appeal. 5. Now survives for consideration the last argument advanced that the liability of the insurance company was limited to only Rs. 1,50,000/-. In the Claims Tribunal the complete policy containing all the conditions entered into between the parties had not been filed. The complete policy has now been filed in this appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants opposes the prayer made on behalf of the insurance company and submitted that the policy cannot be allowed to be filed for the first time in appeal and it cannot be held on that basis that the liability of the insurance company was limited. 6. As held by the Full Bench of this court in United India Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Natvarlal 1988 ACJ 956 (MP), on the question of contents of policy the court should not go on technicalities. No doubt, there was lapse on the part of the insurance company in not filing policy before the Tribunal, the entire policy which is now before us with its full contents shows that the liability of the insurance company was limited to the statutory limit prescribed in Section 95 (2) of the 1939 Act. Learned counsel for the insurance company stated very fairly that its liability was to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- as per provisions of the Act. Consequently, this appeal succeeds only to the extent of above sum. The award of the Tribunal is modified to that extent directing that out of the total compensation awarded the insurance company shall be liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with proportionate interest thereon as per the award. The remaining amount of compensation shall be paid by the owner and driver of the vehicle, namely, respondent Nos. 4 and 6. In the circumstances we leave the parties to bear their own costs of this appeal.