Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 10th May, 1988, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih, in Miscellaneous (Claim) Case No. 14/81/21/86 whereby and whereunder the amount of Rs. 60.750.00 together with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum has been allowed as compensation. 2. A claim of Rs. 75,000.00 was made under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act) by the claimant Smt. Sumitra Devi for herself and behalf of her minor sons and daughters for the accidental death of her husband Ram Prasad Sahu who died on 7.6.1981 at about 13,10 hours at Chhuchhand Talab three Kms. South West from Pirtanr Police Station in the district of Giridih. On the date of occurrence, the deceased was travelling in a Maxi-Taxi No. BHW 713 belonging to one Sita Ram Burnwal. The deceased was not alone in the vehicle but he was with son A.W. 4 along with other passengers. They had boarded at Madhuban More and when the vehicle reached near Chhuchhand Talab, it fell down in the ditch as a result of which the deceased Ram Prasad Sahu died. Eight passengers of the vehicle sustained serious injuries including Ram Prasad Sahu who later on died due to the accident itself. According to the claimants, the vehicle was being run in high speed and rash and negligent manner as a result of which the accident occurred, The vehicle at the relevant time was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company admittedly. The Insurance Certificate produced by the Insurance Company as Ext. A. There is a plea of statutory liability before the tribunal although such specific plea was not taken in their written statement filed. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record found that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the Maxi-Texi aforesaid and hence the owner of the vehicle was held to be liable for payment of compensation which again be indemnified by the Insurance Company. 3. In the appeal, Mr. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record found that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the Maxi-Texi aforesaid and hence the owner of the vehicle was held to be liable for payment of compensation which again be indemnified by the Insurance Company. 3. In the appeal, Mr. Tapen Sen, appearing for and on behalf of the Insurance Company has submitted for consideration of his petition under Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for additional evidence as the Insurance policy now could be found out by the Insurance Company and the same could be proved by the additional evidence to show that the Insurance Company had limited liability to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 . It has further been stated that there was statutory liability at the relevant time as per Sec. 95 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 15,000.00 per passenger. The amount of compensation as calculated by the learned tribunal is definitely wrong and if it would have been calculated properly, the same would have gone to much higher amount on the face of it, but as no cross-objection has been filed regarding the money decree, there is no scope to enhance the same It is not a case that the Insurance Company has no chance of proving their case before the learned tribunal. They had appeared, filed written statement, produced certificate of Insurance and as such there is no scope of giving any further chance to fill up the lacuna by way of additional evidence. The copy of the Insurance Policy was there in the file 6f the Insurance Company at the relevant time and by seeing that the written statement was filed, then there was no reason why the policy was not filed or a copy of it at the relevant time. No attempts were made from the side of the Insurance Company to call for the original policy from the owner who was also on the "record at the relevant time. So, at this stage, there is no scope of giving any chance of additional evidence. Moreover, at the relevant time, there was statutory liability of Rs. 15,000.00 but the policy which the appellant-Insurance Company now wants to bring in evidence is a comprehensive one having limited liability of Rs. 50,000.00 . So, at this stage, there is no scope of giving any chance of additional evidence. Moreover, at the relevant time, there was statutory liability of Rs. 15,000.00 but the policy which the appellant-Insurance Company now wants to bring in evidence is a comprehensive one having limited liability of Rs. 50,000.00 . There is nothing regarding premium being paid on capitation of passengers as in done in such sort of cases and the policy is also beyond the statutory liability or was available at the relevant time, so the question of now pressing of statutory liability, is of no avail and the learned court below has rightly the same. 4. Mr. Sen strenuously argued by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited V/s. Smt. Shanti Bai and Ors. (1995) 2 BLRJ 729. Accordingly to him, practically this judgment has upheld the statutory liability of the Insurance Company relying the previous judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.New Delhi V/s. Jugal Kishore and Ors. -- . I have gone through the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) which had also considered Jugal Kishores case (Supra), but it had not over-ruled Jugal Kishores case. When the Insurance Company could not be able to prove their statutory liability by production of document required for the purpose as observed in Jugal Kishores case, now they cannot come up with such plea at the belated stage. Moreover, the prayer made for additional evidence cannot be acceded to at this stage to fill up the lacuna. Again the statutory liability as available at that time is beyond the scope of the policy as is proposed to be proved in the case because here the limited liability has been mentioned as Rs. 50,000.00 as mentioned above. The policy at the relevant time was tried to be proved but no where there is any statement to the effect the extra premium had not been paid by the owner even after the registration of the policy. 5. In that view of the matter, I do not find any force in this appeal and when the meagre amount has been awarded as compensation, there is no scope to interfere with the same. Hence, the appeal is rejected having no force but without costs.