Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.12.93 passed by Mr. S.M. Haque, 4th Addl. Judicial Commissioner-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in Compensation Case No. 169 of 1983 thereby and there-under a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 was granted by way of compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by one Shashi Bhushan Bhagat, the minor son of the claimant, in an accident involving bus No. BHN 5767. 2. The fact, in short, for the purpose of this appeal is that Shashi Bhushan Bhagat, aged about 14 or so at that time and son of the claimant Kedar Nath Bhagat, was coming from Piska Nagri to Ranchi on bus No. BHN 5767 and the said bus when entered Lalgutuwa Bridge on Gumla-Ranchi road, then a truck bearing No. BPT 6587 also entered the bridge and both the drivers were driving their vehicles rashly and negligently. Due to that, there was a collision and Shashi Bhushan Bhagat was thrown out of the bus and his leg came under the bus and he sustained multiple fracture and various other serious injuries and he was removed to the hospital. It has been alleged that the boy had to undergo operation several times, but still he is handicapped and he is not in a position to move properly due to multiple fracture on his right leg and has incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 57,000.00 for the treatment and medicine and he could not pursue his studies properly and, thus, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000. 3. Before the Tribunal, opposite party No. 2 who is the owner of the bus entered appearance and filed a show cause admitting that Shashi Bhushan Bhagat was travelling in the bus but the vehicle was comprehensively insured with the United India Insurance Co., that is the appellant, and it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and a case was made out that there was negligence on the part of the truck driver also and as the bus was comprehensively insured, so the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. The owner of truck No. BPT 6587 also involved in this accident neither appeared nor contested the claim case in the Court below. 4. The owner of truck No. BPT 6587 also involved in this accident neither appeared nor contested the claim case in the Court below. 4. The insurance company entered appearance and contested the claim but admitted that the bus No. BHN 5767 was insured with this company and has claimed that the claimant should prove the nature of the injuries and the expenses incurred for the treatment and has further claimed that truck No. BPT 6587 is also offending vehicle. In that view of the matter the insurance company which has insured the truck should be made a party and the owner of the truck is also liable for the compensation due to contributory negligence. 5. However, on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing No. BHN 5767 and in this accident the boy Shashi Bhushan Bhagat sustained several injuries including multiple fracture in the right leg and he is virtually handicapped. So a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000.00 was awarded to be payable by the insurance company. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by this order, the insurance company has preferred this appeal and has challenged the findings of the Tribunal on various grounds and this appeal was only contested by the claimant-respondent No. 1 and other respondents, that is, the owners of the bus and the truck have neither appeared nor contested this appeal. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant at the very outset contended that in view of the allegation made in the claim petition, this accident took place on 7.4.1983 inside Lalgutuwa Bridge and the driver of truck No. BPT 6587 was negligent as the truck dashed against the bus. In that view of the matter, due to contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the truck, the owner of the truck or the insurance company which has insured the truck is equally liable to compensate the injured in this accident. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 that no such specific plea was taken by the appellant insurance company before the Tribunal nor any evidence was adduced before the Tribunal to show that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the driver of truck No. BPT 6587. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 that no such specific plea was taken by the appellant insurance company before the Tribunal nor any evidence was adduced before the Tribunal to show that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the driver of truck No. BPT 6587. On the other hand, from the evidence of PW 1, who is the injured himself, this much can be said that the drivers of bus and truck both were in hurry and both were driving rashly and negligently and so this collision between two vehicles took place and he was thrown out of the bus and sustained injuries due to body of the bus. The evidence of this witness has not been controverted by any evidence on the part of insurance company. Moreover, the injured was a passenger in the bus and actually he sustained injuries when he was thrown out of the bus and that too due to lower portion of the body of the bus and the driver of the bus appears to be negligent as neither he stopped his bus nor he took any precaution to avoid collision with the truck. 7. So the accident took place due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus. Even if it is assumed that there was some negligence on the part of the driver of the truck, then it can be said to be a case of composite negligence. In such a situation, the claimant can realize compensation from the appellant insurance company because the bus in question was insured with this company and similar view was expressed by Madras High Court in Andhra Marine Exports (P) Ltd. V/s. P. Radhakrishnan 1984 ACJ 355 (Madras). In such situation and from the evidence on the record, it can be said that the driver of the bus was negligent and carelessly driving the bus for which the accident took place causing serious injuries to the victim boy and in such a situation the claimant is entitled to realize compensation from the owner of the bus or from the appellant insurance company. 8. Now the next question for consideration is as to what will be the quantum of compensation amount. 8. Now the next question for consideration is as to what will be the quantum of compensation amount. From the evidence of PW 1 who is the victim boy himself and that of his father, PW 2 Kedar Nath Bhagat, this much can be said that victim boy Shashi Bhushan Bhagat, a student of Matric, in this accident sustained multiple fracture of his right leg and various other injuries and he was operated upon for as many as four times and remained under treatment of Dr. R.N. Tiwary, Professor of Surgery, R.M.C.H. and after that in the Nursing Home of Dr. R.B. Singh and in all incurred Rs. 57,000.00 for the treatment and details of the expenditure maintained in a register were also produced. PW 3 is Dr. Bhat, Assistant Professor of R.M.C.H., Ranchi, who has proved the injury report, that is, Exh. 4 and Exh. 5 and from his evidence, it can be said that the boy remained in continuous treatment, according to him, up to 13.7.1985. But from the other prescription, i.e., Exh. I/c, it can be said that he was continuously under treatment right from 7.4.1983 to 27.9.1983, and he was operated several times and Exh. 1 also indicates that as many as 3 grievous injuries were there including multiple fracture of tibia. Exh. 3, the certificate of Professor and Head of Department of Orthopaedics, R.M.C.H., Ranchi, indicates that even after the operation and treatment, the boy was suffering from stiffness of right knee and various other complications and he was declared to be handicapped. Thus it can be said that due to the accident and the injuries, the boy had to remain under continuous treatment for several months under various doctors and he had undergone operations for four times and he had also to remain in a private Nursing Home and still he is handicapped and from the evidence on the record, it can be said that the father of the boy incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 57,000.00 towards the treatment and other expenses. 9. Admittedly, at the time of the accident the boy was a student of Matric and he had to discontinue his studies for some time and as he was handicapped also he is not in a position to compete in other services. 57,000.00 towards the treatment and other expenses. 9. Admittedly, at the time of the accident the boy was a student of Matric and he had to discontinue his studies for some time and as he was handicapped also he is not in a position to compete in other services. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in assessing the damages and awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.00 to the claimant and it does not require any interference. 10. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the vehicle was no doubt insured with the appellant company and according to the terms and conditions of the policy as no additional amount was paid by the owner of the vehicle and the victim boy was passenger of the bus, so in view of provision of Sec. 95(2)(b)(ii) of 1939 Act the statutory liability of the insurance company is limited up to Rs. 15,000.00 and beyond that the owner is liable to compensate the claimant. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent-claimant that no such specific plea was taken by the insurance company in the Court below and the copy of the policy had also not been produced to indicate that no additional amount of premium was being paid by the owner of the bus and the company is only liable to pay Rs. 15,000.00 and it was contended that if at all copy of the insurance policy is not produced in the Court below or is not in evidence, then in such a situation the insurance company is not entitled to take this plea at the appellate stage and in support of this contention has relied upon a case of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Jugal Kishore 1988 ACJ 270 (SC). Further, by a Bench of this Court in a case in Dilip Kumar Saha V/s. Runnu Sarkar 1995 ACJ 353 (Patna), it was held that if the insurance company has not filed the copy of the policy, though several copies of the policy are retained in the office of the insurance company, then in such a situation, an adverse inference is to be drawn and it cannot be said that liability of the insurance company is limited. Similar view was expressed by a Bench of this Court reported in 1994 (2) BLJ 442 . 11. Similar view was expressed by a Bench of this Court reported in 1994 (2) BLJ 442 . 11. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the insurance company submitted that though copy of the insurance policy was not filed in the Court below, but now a copy of the policy is herewith filed with a prayer to admit the same under Order XLI, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code and it was further contended that in similar situation a Bench of this Court admitted copy of the policy in Kashi Nath Poddar v. Archana Sahay 1998 (1) PLJR 279 . There are no two opinions that even in the appellate stage, the insurance company can file copy of the policy with a prayer for admitting the same in evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. But in the instant case, surprisingly, copy of the policy maintained in the office of the insurance company or even the photostat copy of the same has not been filed; rather an attested copy, that too not of the original copy, had been filed. So the attested copy which is also not a copy of the original policy rather extract of the same, was filed which cannot be admitted in evidence as this document is inadmissible. In all fairness the insurance company should have filed the copy of the policy with a prayer for admitting the same in evidence, but that has not been done. In Dilip Kumar Sahas case 1995 ACJ 353 (Patna), also when the insurance company filed the attested copy of the policy it was not admitted in evidence. In such a situation, the attested copy which is also an extract of the copy of the policy, is not to be admitted in evidence and as such it can be said that the insurance company has not brought on the record the copy of the policy of the owner of the bus to show that no additional amount was being paid as premium and so the liability of the insurance company is only limited to Rs. 15,000. Under the circumstances, the insurance company is liable to pay and to indemnify the owner in respect of the claim of entire compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal. 12. 15,000. Under the circumstances, the insurance company is liable to pay and to indemnify the owner in respect of the claim of entire compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and so it is dismissed but without costs and the order of the Tribunal dated 7.12.1993 and award dated 14.12.93 is hereby confirmed and the insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the claimant, that is respondent No. 1, as awarded by the Tribunal together with interest.