ORDER A.M. Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 21.7.1995 rendered by 1st M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 58/79. By this appeal the claimant inter alia wants more compensation than the one awarded by the learned Member of M.A.C.T. for the death of Shankar. They also claim joint and several award against all the respondents. 2. In short the case of the appellants was that they filed a claim petition on 24.3.1979 claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for the death of Shankar who was husband of appellant No. 1 (claimant No. 1) and father of appellants Nos. 2 to 7 (claimant Nos. 2 to 7), who died in an accident on 6.10.1978. It so happened that Shankar who was travelling in Truck No. M.P.L. 3955 on the fateful day while getting down from the truck was crushed and succumbed to injuries. According to claimant the deceased was a young man entitled for reasonable compensation. 3. It appears from the record of the case that the claim petition was dismissed for default on 27.4.1983. However, the claimant filed M.A. being M.A. No. 286/83 before this Court against the order dismissing the claim petition. this Court by its order dated 26.2.1992 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of learned Tribunal and remanded the case for trial on its merit. However, this Court observed that in case claimants succeeded in their claim then they will not be entitled to claim interest from the date of application till the date of High Court order in M.A. No. 286/83 i.e. 26.2.1992. 4. Accordingly by impugned award of the learned Member of Tribunal, the claim petition was allowed in part. The learned Member awarded a sum of Rs. 69,200/- to the claimants. However the Insurance Company was not held liable to pay any compensation, holding that the deceased Was travelling as passenger thereby it resulted in breach of policy. It is against this award, the claimants feel aggrieved and filed this appeal. 5. Heard Mr. H.S. Rajpal, learned Counsel for appellants, Mr. Dandawate, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and Mr. Anwar Khan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. 6. Mr. Rajpal, learned Counsel for the appellants made two submissions. According to him the learned Member of Tribunal should have awarded consortium may be reasonable. 5. Heard Mr. H.S. Rajpal, learned Counsel for appellants, Mr. Dandawate, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and Mr. Anwar Khan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. 6. Mr. Rajpal, learned Counsel for the appellants made two submissions. According to him the learned Member of Tribunal should have awarded consortium may be reasonable. Secondly, the finding regarding exoneration of Insurance Company is bad in law. 7. He relied on the decision of Supreme Court, 1988 ACJ 270 : 1 (1988) ACC 327 (SC) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore and Ors. In reply, the submission of Mr. Gangrade, learned Counsel for respondent Insurance Company was for upholding of award in its totality. He relied on the decision of Supreme Court reported in 1991 ACJ Mallawwa and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the claimants should have been awarded reasonable sum towards consortium for the loss of Shankar, it being a legitimate sum to be awarded to the claimant. In my opinion, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- would be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. As regards the second submission, in my opinion, the Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in a case reported in 1988 ACJ 270 observed as follows: Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to refer to the attitude often 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 significant 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 is the duty of the party which is in possession of a document which would be helpful in doing justice in the cause 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 appellants 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. This duty is greater in the case of instrumentalities of the State such as the appellants 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 in 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 alongwith 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. The obligation on the part of the State or its instrumentalities to act fairly can never be over-emphasised. 9. In the present case also I find that Company had not filed the policy nor its copy but asked the claimants to file it. In view of the aforesaid observations of Supreme Court, the defence of Company could be examined if the policy had been on record. The case relied on by Mr. Gangrade, learned Counsel for Company proceeded on the fact that policy was on record and, therefore, in my opinion does not apply to the facts of the case. 10. In my opinion, in the absence of policy not being filed by the Company, the Insurance Company was not entitled to prove its various defences with a view to decide as to which clause of policy is breached. 11. Appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants will get a sum of Rs. 10,000/- together with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% from 26.2.1992. The liability will be joint and several against all the respondents which obviously include Insurance Company. No cost.