JUDGMENT The only point which is involved in this appeal is in respect of liability of Insurance Company, the appellant for making good the loss caused to the respondents who are the legal representatives of deceased Dashrath Anjana, who died due to the injuries sustained by him in motor accident which took place on 20.4.88. The Tribunal held that the liability of Insurance Company the appellant was unlimited and was not restricted to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger upto the last limit of Rs. one lakh. The Tribunal granted compensation to the LRs of deceased Dashrath Anjana to the tune of Rs. 82,800/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of the claim petition to the date when the award amount would be realised. Shri Dandwate, counsel appearing for the appellant, the Insurance Company submitted that keeping in view the annexure to the policy, which is in the nature of addenda the liability of appellant was restricted to Rs. 15,000/- per passenger and to a sum of Rs. one lakh in all. He submitted that in view of that, the Tribunal committed the error of law in misreading the policy as well as the evidence of Jatawa, the witness of the appellant. He submitted that the Tribunal should have held that in all the liability was upto Rs. one lakh only for all the passengers and therefore, the Tribunal should have awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the LRs of deceased Dashrath and nothing more. Shri G.K. Neema, counsel for the respondents, by reading the said addend pointed out that the .Insurance Company has not taken the care to score the words 'per passenger' . He submitted that the witness of the appellant. Jatawa, has also stated in his evidence that the liability range was increased from Rs. one lakhs to Rs. 1,75,000/- per passenger. After examining the impugned award, evidence of Jatawa and the addenda to policy, it will have to be held that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the liability of Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 82,800/- payable to LRs of deceased Dashrath and who died as passenger in the said accident. The said addenda mentions that the liability of Insurance Company was raised from Rs. 15,000/- per passenger to Rs. one lakh per passenger. 82,800/- payable to LRs of deceased Dashrath and who died as passenger in the said accident. The said addenda mentions that the liability of Insurance Company was raised from Rs. 15,000/- per passenger to Rs. one lakh per passenger. Had there been intention otherwise, the Insurance Company, the appellant would have taken care to score the said word 'per passenger', or would have taken care of examining its officer, who executed the said policy alongwith addenda. The appellant Insurance Company did not examine that officer though there is nothing on record to show that he was not traceable or available for examination for substantiating the case of the appellant. If at all, the Insurance Company wanted to canvass that the total liability of Insurance Company was restricted to Rs. one lakh only, the burden of proving that was on the shoulder of Insurance Company. The appellant has not taken care in that context and, therefore, it has to thank or blame itself. PW Jatawa's evidence shows that he does not have the personal knowledge of the execution of the policy and the addenda. He has stated in his evidence that by raising premium amount the extent of liability per passenger was raised from Rs. one lakh to Rs. 1,75,000/- per passenger. If at all the Insurance Company, the appellant was displeased with some statements of its own 'officer, the appellant, the Insurance Company was at liberty to put question in the nature of cross-examination to its own witness for the purpose of putting him on right track, but that course has not also been followed. That could have been done by the appellant's counsel by seeking permission of the Tribunal, in its own interest. Even that has also not been done. It is pertinent to note that in the present case the Insurance Company was careful in annexing the addenda to insurance policy by which the special terms and conditions were laid down. It is further pertinent to note that said addenda has not been signed by the owner of the said vehicle. That document is signed by the officer of Insurance Company unilaterally. Thus, summing up all, I come to the conclusion that there is no error whatsoever in the award which has been passed by the Tribunal and which is being assailed in this appeal. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed with costs. That document is signed by the officer of Insurance Company unilaterally. Thus, summing up all, I come to the conclusion that there is no error whatsoever in the award which has been passed by the Tribunal and which is being assailed in this appeal. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed with costs. It is made clear that this order shall not be taken as general rule because each and every case depends on policy which has been produced and the intention expressed by the Insurance Company and the concerned parties per case. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.