Honble JAIN, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment and Award dated 1.8.1991 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge No.2), Jodhpur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- against the appellant and non-applicant-respondents No. 8 and 9. (2). Since only two questions have been raised in this appeal a detailed narra- tion of the facts is not necessary. It is alleged that on 16.5.1989 Narayanlal Meena was driving Bus No. RSY 6031. The deceased Shanker Lal was sitting behind his seat in the aforesaid Bus. It is alleged that deceased Narayanlal drove the above bus very rashly and negligently, as a result of which, he could not control the bus and ultimately, the bus fell into a pit. Shankerlal sustained various injuries and he died instantaneously. The claimants are his wife, mother, four daughters and one son. It is alleged that on account of rash and negligent driving of the above vehicle, this accident occurred and Shanker Lal died. Admittedly, the Bus was insured with the appellant. (3). The above claim petition was contested on behalf of the non- applicants respondents No.8 and 9 as also the appellant on the ground that the insurer only paid the insurance premium @ Rs. 12/- per passenger and hence, under s. 95(2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act (s. 147 (1) (b) (ii)) the liability of the appellant shall only be to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger. However, the learned Tribunal held that the owner of the above vehicle paid Rs. 50/- extra in order to cover unlimited risk and, therefore, the contention of the appellant was not accepted and the learned Tribunal held that liability of the appellant is unlimited. The contention of the appellant that the deceased has a passenger only and not a `third part was also deposited. (4). The learned Tribunal held that the deceased was only 43 years of age at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal assessed the salary of the deceased at Rs. 1400/- per month and determined the dependency accordingly. The learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15. The claim was thus determined at Rs. 2,52,000/-. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- was awarded on some other heads. Thus, the total claim including the interim Award was determined at Rs. 2,60,000/-. The learned Tribunal assessed the salary of the deceased at Rs. 1400/- per month and determined the dependency accordingly. The learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15. The claim was thus determined at Rs. 2,52,000/-. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- was awarded on some other heads. Thus, the total claim including the interim Award was determined at Rs. 2,60,000/-. The learned Tribunal allowed the appellant and the non-applicants-respondents No.8 and 9 a period of two months to pay the aforesaid amount, failing which, it was ordered that this amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. (5). I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully gone through the record of the case. (6). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that from the perusal of the insurance policy filed before the learned Tribunal, it would be clear that the Bus owner only paid premium at the rate of Rs. 12/- per passenger. No extra premium was paid to cover up unlimited risk. Hence, the liability of the appellant was only Rs. 15/- per passenger. The claimants were, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Shankerlal in the above accident. The learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that the additional premium of Rs. 50/- was paid which only meant to cover the additional risk and the liability of the appellant was unlimited. (7). The learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents has argued that there is a lot of confusion about the insurance policy though there is no dispute that the owner obtained the insurance policy in respect of the above bus and also paid premium but the original insurance policy has not been brought before the learned Tribunal. In this connection, he referred to the statement of Chandmal who was Manager of the Udaipur Branch of the Insurance Company. He clearly admitted in his cross- examination that Ex.D. 2 was not the original policy and it was not issued from their office. He further stated that after perusing the copy of the policy Ex.D.1, he is not in a position to say that which Officer has signed this Policy. The Insurance Policy Ex.D.1 was produced on the basis of the record of their office. He also admitted that a sum of Rs. He further stated that after perusing the copy of the policy Ex.D.1, he is not in a position to say that which Officer has signed this Policy. The Insurance Policy Ex.D.1 was produced on the basis of the record of their office. He also admitted that a sum of Rs. 50/- as additional premium was paid by the owner of the above vehicle in order to cover up third party risk/damages. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the additional premium of Rs. 50/- covered unlimited risk. From the above alibies thus clear that the owner of the bus paid additional premium and the liability of the Insurance Company became unlimited. (8). I have considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. (9). From the statement of Chandmal, it is clear that neither Ex.D.1 nor Ex.D.2 are the copies of their originals. Regarding Ex.D.2, he has clearly stated that it is not the copy of its original. Ex.D.1 was produced by his Office. Regarding Ex.D.1, he has stated that it was prepared on the basis of the document Ex. D.1A and the number of Ex.D.1A and Ex.D.2 are the same. It is, thus, clear that the appellant has not cared to produce the original insurance policy, which was very material for determining the quantum of compensation. (10). The Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jugalkishore & Ors. (1), underlined. and emphasized the necessity on the part of the Insurance Com- pany to produce the original insurance policy. It was observed: ``We accordingly wish to emphasize that in all such cases where the insurance company concerned wishes to take a defence in the claim petition that the liability is not in excess to the statutory liability, it should file a copy of the insurance policy alongwith its defence xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx Filing the copy of the insurance policy is not only or the cut short to avoid the litigation but it, also helps the Court in doing the justice between the parties. The obligation on the part of the State or its instrumentalities to act fairly cannot be over emphasised. (11). This Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Tahir Mohammed & Ors. (2) and National Insurance Co. vs. Smt. Husena & Ors. The obligation on the part of the State or its instrumentalities to act fairly cannot be over emphasised. (11). This Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Tahir Mohammed & Ors. (2) and National Insurance Co. vs. Smt. Husena & Ors. (3), relied on the above observations made by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jugalkishore (supra) and held that it was the obligatory duty of the Insurance company to come foreword with the original insurance policy ins order to facilitate the correct adjudication of the claim on the basis of the insurance policy. If the Insurance company fails to produce the original insurance policy, the argument that the liability was only limited cannot hold good. (12). As stated above, in the instant case the appellant has failed to produce the original insurance policy and has also failed to explain the reasons for the non-production of the original insurance policy and, therefore, the argument that the liability of the Insurance company is limited cannot hold good. (13). The Second contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that deceased Shanker Lal was only a `passenger in the above bus and by no stretch of argument, he can be treated to be a `third party. He analysed the provisions of s. 95 of the Act and submitted that in s. 95 of the Act, a distinction has been drawn between the liability which the insurer incurs in respect of a passenger and a third party. This distinction was judiciarlly noticed in National Insurance Com- pany Ltd. vs. Paras Parmer widow of Oat Singh & Ors. (4). Thus, the learned Tribunal committed an error in treating a passenger as a third party. He further submitted that the insurance policy did not cover the risk against a `third person. His main contention, therefore is that if the passenger sitting in the bus meet with an accident, the claim will be strictly governed by the provisions relating to the risk of the passengers. (14). The learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents submitted that admittedly Shankerlal was travelling in the above bus in connection with his official duties and as a result of this fatal accident, he died. His contention is that a passenger who was travelling in a bus. if meets with an accident, it cannot be said that he was not a third party. His contention is that a passenger who was travelling in a bus. if meets with an accident, it cannot be said that he was not a third party. In this connection, he has placed reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kishori (5). In that case, the M.P. High Court relied on the definition of `third party as given in Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Third Edition, Vol. 4, pages 3019-3020 and also the decision of the Privy Council in Dighy vs. General Accidents Fire and Life Assurance Corporation (6). (15). I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. (16). In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Paras Parmar widow of Oatsingh and Ors (supra), Justice Balia, J. analysed the provisions of s. 95 of the Act and observed: ``It is in respect of these two types of liability, for the coverage by which insurance policy is issued by the Insurance company, the limit of liability has been prescribed under sub-s. (2). `Section 95(1) makes a clear distinction between ``third party and ``passenger. The two terms have been used in relation to vehicle and not in relation to the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, sub-s. 2 has to be read in the context of the risk that is required to be covered. That depends on the fact in what capacity the insured has suffered injury. If the person has received injury in his capacity as a `third party, the limit of liability under sub-s. (2) shall be that as has been prescribed in respect of `third party. Whereas, if the injury has been suffered as an occupant or passenger of the vehicle then the liability will be to the extent as has been made applicable to the passengers under sub-s. (2). (17). From the perusal of the provisions of s. 95 of the Act, it is crystal clear that it deals with two types of liabilities of the insurer viz., (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place and (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. However, by making two separate provisions, it cannot be inferred that the legislature has changed the definition of third party. Unfortunately, in the Old Act, there was no definition of third party and now in the New Act, the definition of `third party is conclusive. In the case of fatal accident of a passenger travelling in the Bus on hire cannot suffer disadvantage as compared to an ordinary person travelling on the road as regards the liability of the Insurance company under a policy. However, the case of a gratituous passenger stands on a different footing. In Santra Bai vs. Prahalad (7), it has been held by their lordships of this Court that in the case of a gratituous passenger going on joy-ride of on his own risk, the insurance Company is not liable. Hence, no liability of the Insurance company accrues in the case of fatal accident involving a gratituous passenger. In this connection, I agree with the view taken by Madhya Pradesh High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kishori (supra). In para 16 of that judgment, the definition of `third party risk as defined in Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Third edition, Vol. 4 Pages 3019-3020 has been given as follows : ``Third party risks Road Traffic Act, 1930 (20 & 21) Geo. 5 C.5, C.43- s.35) connotes that the insurer is one party to the contract that the policy holder is another party, and that claims made by others in respect of the negligent use of the car, may be naturally described as claims by third parties. (18). The Privy Council has also thus interpreted the words ``Third Party risk in Digby vs. General Accidents Fire and Life Assurance Corporation (supra). I am, therefore, disposed of to hold that deceased Shankerlal being a passenger was also a `third party and, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable for unlimited liability. (19). For the above reasons, the Award of the learned Tribunal cannot be interferred with. The multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is also in accordance with the law. (20) In this view of the matter, I find no substance in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed. (21). Before parting with this case, I would like to observe that the learned Tribunal has not chalked out the scheme regarding disbursement of the Awarded amount amongst the claimants. (20) In this view of the matter, I find no substance in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed. (21). Before parting with this case, I would like to observe that the learned Tribunal has not chalked out the scheme regarding disbursement of the Awarded amount amongst the claimants. I, therefore, direct the learned Tribunal to chalk out the scheme regarding disbursement of the awarded sums amongst the claimants keeping in view the observations made in G.M.K.S.R.T. Corpn. vs. Susamma Thomas (8), at an early date.