JUDGMENT 1. - The attitude of the Insurance Companies in not filing the copies of insurance policies before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, I had drawn the attention of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Jugal Kishore & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 719 : (1988) 1 ACC 327 (SC) . In para 10 of the judgment their Lordships observed thus : "Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to refer to the attitude often adopted by the Insurance Companies, as was adopted even in this case, of not filing a copy of the policy before the Tribunal and even before the High Court in appeal. In this connection what is of significance is that the (claimants for compensation under the Act are invariably not possessed of either the policy or a copy thereof. This Court has consistently emphasised that it is the duty of the party which is in possession of a document which would be helpful in doing justice in the course to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. This duty is greater in the case of instrumentalities of the State such as the appellant who are under an obligation to act fairly. In many cases even the owner of the vehicle for reasons known to him does not choose to produce the policy or a copy thereof. We accordingly, wish to emphasise that in all such cases where the Insurance Company concerned wishes to take a defence in claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence. Even in the instant case had it been done so at the appropriate stage, necessity of approaching this Court in civil appeal would in all probability have been avoided. Filing a copy of the policy, therefore, not only cuts short avoidable litigation but also helps the Court in doing justice between the parties." 2. The controversy raised in appeal now is also with regard to 'limited liability' of the appellant, the United India Insurance Company. The matter here concerns the accident which resulted in the death of Roshan Lal, who had been run over and killed by Matador No. DBL9865. The controversy raised in appeal now is also with regard to 'limited liability' of the appellant, the United India Insurance Company. The matter here concerns the accident which resulted in the death of Roshan Lal, who had been run over and killed by Matador No. DBL9865. A finding of rash and negligent driving had been returned by the Tribunal against the driver of the Matador, Naresh Kumar. The liability for the payment of the amount of Rs. 8,07,912/- as compensation, was fastened upon the owner of the Metador, as also the appellant Insurance Company with which the Matador stood insured. 3. The only argument canvassed in the appeal by Mr. P.S. Shukla, tine learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is that the liability of Insurance Company was limited to the extent of statutory liability but the learned Tribunal has erroneously held that the Insurance Company would be liable for the entire amount awarded as compensation. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on National Insurance Company v. Jugal Kishore , (supra), Smt. Rajendra Kumari & Anr. v. Smt. Shanta Trivedi & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1074 : (1989) 1 ACC 372 (SC) ; Surjit Kaur & Ors. v. Harbhajan Singh & Ors., 1996 ACJ 457 : (1995) 11 ACC 561 ; Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jaloja & Ors., 1995 ACJ 829 ; New India Assurance Company Limited v. Ram Lal & Ors., 1988 (Supp.) SCC 506 ; New Mia Assurance Company v. Jagan Nath Singh, 1995 ACJ 683 , and United India Insurance Company v. Smt. Bhiki & Ors.; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 122/88 decided on 4.1.1996 , by this Court. 4. It may be observed that the appellant, Insurance Company in its written statement filed before the Tribunal pleaded that the liability of Insurance Company was limited to the extent provided under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. However, the Tribunal did not frame issue in respect of limited liability of the Company. In all four issues were framed and as many as eleven witnesses were produced by the claimants. No witness was examined by the owner of the vehicle as well as by the appellant, Insurance Company. However, the Tribunal did not frame issue in respect of limited liability of the Company. In all four issues were framed and as many as eleven witnesses were produced by the claimants. No witness was examined by the owner of the vehicle as well as by the appellant, Insurance Company. Though the learned Tribunal did not frame issue in respect of limited liability, yet discussed in detail the arguments advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company in this regard and observed that in absence of the evidence it could not have been held that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited. 5. It is evident from the impugned judgment that insurance policy was not admitted in evidence before the Tribunal by the appellant-Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal has categorically held that neither the evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company in respect of limited liability nor from the documents on record relating to insurance, the limited liability of Insurance Company was established. A close look at the memo of appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company demonstrates that nowhere the appellant mentioned that the insurance policy was admitted in evidence. When defence in respect of limited liability was pleaded in the written statement, it was necessary for the Insurance Company to prove the insurance policy by adducing evidence and by exhibiting it. 6. National Insurance Company v. Jugal Kishore (supra) was the case wherein the copy of the insurance policy was filed before the Supreme Court by the Insurance Company and the respondents did not object it. A look at para No. 4 of the said judgment reveals as under: "Before dealing with the submissions we may point out that the policy under which the bus aforesaid was insured had not been filed either before the Tribunal or before the High Court. A photostat copy of the policy has however been filed in this Court and the learned Counsel for the respondents did not have objection to the same being admitted in evidence." Therefore ratio of National Insurance Company's case (supra) is not applicable as in the case on hand the insurance policy was not admitted in evidence. 7. A photostat copy of the policy has however been filed in this Court and the learned Counsel for the respondents did not have objection to the same being admitted in evidence." Therefore ratio of National Insurance Company's case (supra) is not applicable as in the case on hand the insurance policy was not admitted in evidence. 7. Smt. Rajendra Kumari v. Smt. Shanta Trivedi , (supra) was the case wherein the limited liability of Insurance Company was admitted in the pleadings, therefore, it was held by the Apex Court that- "It has been already noticed that before the Tribunal the appellants had categorically admitted that the liability of the Insurance Company extended to Rs. 4,000/- only. In the circumstances, we do not think that it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to file the policy." (Emphasis supplied) 8. In Surjit Kaur's case (supra), cover note of the insurance policy was produced before the Claims Tribunal, which was Ex. A93. Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jalaja & Ors. (supra) was the case wherein the Insurance Company produced true copy of the policy. It was held by the Madras High Court that adverse inference was drawable against the owner for non-production of the original policy. In New India Assurance Company v. Ram Lal (supra) the Insurance Company produced the insurance policy showing the liability of the Insurance Company was only to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- only. In New India Assurance Company's case (supra) it was admitted that truck was insured with the Insurance Company. It could not be inferred from the judgment that insurance policy was not filed. 9. In United India Insurance Company v. Smt. Bhiki & Ors. (supra) this Court (Hon'ble B.R. Arora, J.) had occasion to deal with the question pertaining to the limited liability of the Company. In that case no copy of the insurance policy was filed by the Insurance Company or got it proved but the respondent-Dharamveer who appeared as DW 1 had placed on record Ex. A1, the original insurance policy of the vehicle in question. 10. Therefore, all the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant are distinguishable and not applicable on the instant case. A1, the original insurance policy of the vehicle in question. 10. Therefore, all the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant are distinguishable and not applicable on the instant case. The principle that is deducible from the above discussion is that in order to substantiate the pleading in respect of limited liability of the Insurance Company, it is necessary to file the insurance policy before the Claims Tribunal and to admit it in evidence. As insurance policy was not admitted in evidence it was rightly observed by the learned Tribunal that liability of the appellant-Insurance Company was unlimited. 11. This takes me to the cross objections filed by the claimants Somvati, Mukesh and Har Narain for the enhancement of the compensation. The age of Roshan Lal deceased was 32 years at the time of his death. The dependency was calculated at monthly income of Rs. 1,627/- and multiplier of 38 was applied. Compensation for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection was awarded as Rs. 20,000/-and 30,000/- respectively. In my view the compensation and interest awarded by the Tribunal is not required to be stepped up. 12. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant and cross objections filed by the respondents 1, 4 and 6 are dismissed. Costs easy.Appeal dismissed. *******