Judgment A.K.Sinha, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the order dated 25.1.1992 and the Award dated 3.2.1992 passed by Sri S.K. Murari, 6th Addl, Judicial Commissioner-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in compensation Case No. 18 of 1989, whereby the Tribunal gave an Award of Rs. 2,86,500/- in favour of the claimants with interest at rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the case against which the appellant New India Insurance Company Limited has preferred this appeal. 2. The applicant Dr. Madan Kumar Sinha, who is a veterinary officer had gone to Harmu Road Ranchi on his scooter bearing registration no. B.H.I. 955 and when he started his scooter a truck bearing registration no. B.H.N. 5075 coming from wrong side being driven rashly and negligently dashed against the stationary scooter and the truck ran over the leg of the applicant as a result of which he sustained injury and his scooter was also damaged. The applicant was taken to Keshri Nursing Home Ranchi, where his left leg was amputated and right leg was also operated by the surgeon. After some time the applicant developed malurin in his right leg, so he was advised to consult Dr. B. Mukhopadhyay, a renowned orthopaedic surgeon at Patna, where the applicant remained admitted in Popular Nursing Home, Patna, where his right leg was operated upon thrice. The applicant also received treatment for plastic surgery at Kurji Hospital at Patna where he remained admitted from 10.10.1988 to 12.12.1988 and the applicant underwent three repeated operations for plastic surgery and had to incur huge amount over his treatment. The applicant claimed that he became permanent disabled person and was unable to perform his duty and thereby he was deprived of his future promotion and the enjoyment of life. Therefore, the applicant claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,77,000/- on account of his disablement, pain, agony, mental tention etc. According to the case of the applicant respondent no. 2/opposite party no. 1 was the owner of the truck No. BHN 5085, whereas opposite party no. 2/ appellant was the insurer of the truck in question at the time of accident. Both the opposite parties contested the case on various grounds and the learned Tribunal framed the following issues in the case : 1. ls the claim case maintainable ? 2. Has the applicant cause of action ? 3. 2/ appellant was the insurer of the truck in question at the time of accident. Both the opposite parties contested the case on various grounds and the learned Tribunal framed the following issues in the case : 1. ls the claim case maintainable ? 2. Has the applicant cause of action ? 3. Whether the accident took place due to rash and the negligent driving of Truck No. BHN 5085 or due to the own negligence of the claimant? 4. Whether the applicant received injuries in the accident resulting in amputation of his leg? 5. Is the applicant entitled to an award of compensation ? If so for what amount ? 3. On consideration of the evidence on record the learned Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck as a result of which the left leg of the applicant was amputated. As regards, the quantum of compensation the learned Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record, held that the applicant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 94,000/- on account of medical expenses and a further sum of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded to the applicant for the pain and losses of enjoyment of life. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 1,53,000/- for his disability and Rs. 1,000/- for the damage of his scooter. A sum of Rs. 8,500/- was awarded to the applicant on account of losses of earning on account of earned leave. The learned Tribunal also held that the entire liability to pay the awarded amount was of the Insurance Company, inasmuch, as the liability of the Insurance Company towards the public risk was unlimited. 4. The applicant filed a cross- objection in the instant appeal claiming interest at the rate of 18% on the awarded amount, besides more compensation on account of mental agony, damage to the scooter and the medical expenses incurred after the filing of the application and for permanent disablement. No cross- appeal was filed on behalf of the owner of the truck in question. 5. In course of hearing of this appeal Mr. No cross- appeal was filed on behalf of the owner of the truck in question. 5. In course of hearing of this appeal Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has assailed the order passed by the learned Tribunal mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the liability of the Insurance Company towards the public risk was unlimited and ordered the Insurance Company to pay the entire amount of Award. It was submitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company under the Act policy only, under which the liability of the Insurance Company towards third party risk is limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-only under section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act. It was further submitted that if the insured wanted coverage of unlimited liability against the public risk then the insured had to pay extra premium for that as per the Tariff of the Insurance Company and in that case it would have been mentioned in the policy itself that extra premium for covering unlimited liability against the public risk has been paid and the liability of the Insurance Company towards the public risk is unlimited, but in the instant case the owner of the vehicle had not paid any extra premium for covering unlimited liability against the public risk nor the policy document shows that the insured had paid extra premium for covering unlimited liability. 6. An application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company annexing the photostat copy of the policy (An- nexure-1) and it has been prayed that the same may be admitted as additional evidence in this appeal. No rejoinder has been filed thereto. Hence, for proper adjudication of the matter and in the ends of justice the photostat copy of the policy (Annexure-1) is admitted in evidence. 7. Mr. Lal submitted that it will be transparently clear from the photostat copy of the policy that the vehicle in question was insured under the Act policy only and a sum of Rs. 240/- was paid as premium towards the liability to public risk besides a sum of Rs. 16/- was paid for covering the liability of driver and cleaner and in this way a total sum of Rs. 256/- was paid as premium. Mr. 240/- was paid as premium towards the liability to public risk besides a sum of Rs. 16/- was paid for covering the liability of driver and cleaner and in this way a total sum of Rs. 256/- was paid as premium. Mr. Lal pointed out to me that there is specific column in the policy document for unlimited risk of the Insurance Company and that column reads as follows : Add for increased T.P. Limits ....Rs. Section II. 1(i) unlimited........ Rs. Section II. 1 (ii) ...... Rs. It was pointed out to me that if the insured would have paid extra premium for covering unlimited liability towards the public risk then the amount of premium paid by insured would have been mentioned in the aforesaid column which is absolutely blank and, as such, it is transparently clear that the insured had not paid any extra premium for covering the unlimited liability towards the public risk and in such view of the matter the liability of the Insurance Company was limited one and at the relevant time it was Rs. 1,50,000/-, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation beyond Rs. 1,50,000/- and the remaining amount has to be paid by the owner of the vehicle. ln order to clearify, Mr. Lal submitted that under the Act Policy the Insurance Company used to charge Rs. 200/- as premium, but in the instant case a sum of Rs. 40/- has been charged more. According to him under the Act Policy, the Insurance Company has a limited liability towards the damage to the vehicle to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- only and if the insured wanted the caverage of more risk towards damage to the vehicle he had to pay extra premium for that and in the instant case a sum of Rs. 40/- has been paid more for covering the risk of damage to the vehicle to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. In order to bring home his point, Mr. Lal has produced before me the copy of the tariff, which provides that where unlimited personal injury is required to be covered under an Act policy only in respect of the vehicle, the rate under Regulation-2 of the all commercial vehicles and registered, as such, this may be granted by charging 50% of the rate shown in the first item of schedule for vehicles appearing at (a) above. The rate prescribed in the first item of schedule for vehicle at (a) above is Rs. 50% per vehicle in respect of Goods Carrying vehicles under Regulation (2) of the Tariff. It would, therefore, appear that if the insured wanted the coverage of unlimited liability towards the public risk under the Act policy, he had to pay a sum of Rs. 25/- as extra premium and in case of such payment being made by the insured that would have been mentioned in the policy itself. Mr. Lal, therefore, submitted that the extra premium for covering unlimited liability was neither paid by the insured nor mentioned in the policy, hence, the Insurance Company had only limited liability to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In order to explain the payment of Rs. 40/- made by the insured Mr. Lal submits that the extra premium of Rs. 40/- was paid for covering the risk of damage to the property to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-, which is more or less in confirmity with the rates prescribed for covering such risk under schedule of the premium shown in the Tariff. He, however, submits that it has not been clearly mentioned that the payment of Rs. 40/- was made for covering extra risk of damage to the property, but as a matter of fact a sum of Rs. 40/- was paid as extra premium for covering risk to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- for the damage to the property. It was, therefore, submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in holding that there was unlimited liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimant and it requires to be modified by this Court and it was submitted that over and above the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- the owner will pay the balance amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. 8. Mr. S.N.Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant respondent seriously challenged the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, Insurance Company, and submitted that under the Act policy covering limited liability of Rs. 1,50,000/- the insured was supposed to pay premium of Rs. 200/- only, but it is admitted position that the insured had paid the premium of Rs. 240/- i.e. Rs. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, Insurance Company, and submitted that under the Act policy covering limited liability of Rs. 1,50,000/- the insured was supposed to pay premium of Rs. 200/- only, but it is admitted position that the insured had paid the premium of Rs. 240/- i.e. Rs. 40/- extra, which was meant for covering the unlimited liability to public risk under the Act policy and so, in the present case the Insurance Company had the unlimited liability to pay the claims of the claimants and the owner of the truck is not in any way liable to pay anything. Mr. S.N. Lal relied upon the decision in the case of Tulsiram Agarwal V/s. Manjinder Singh & others, reported in 1(2000) ACC 415 of the Rajasthan High Court, where it was held that "when a premium of Rs. 240/- has been charged by the Insurance Company to cover the liability to public risk which is higher than the Act only premium of Rs. 200/- therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company would be unlimited and the Insurance Company is, therefore, liable to meet out all third party claims and it cannot avoid the liability to pay the awarded amount to the claimants. In the said decision His Lordship relied upon the decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Pushpa Kakkar, 1993 ACJ 328 (Delhi), wherein the same view was adopted by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. In another decision in the case of Dilip Kumar Saha V/s. (Smt.) Runnu Sarkar & Another, reported in 1994(2) BLJ 428 : 1994(1) PLJR 607, a Bench of this Court held that "under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, the owner of a vehicle is required to pay compensation in case of death or bodily injury caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. The requirement arises keeping in view the mandatory provisions contained under Chapter Vll-A and VIII of the Act. Therefore, keeping in view the "Limits of Liability" clause contained in the Insurance policy, as quoted above, it is incumbent upon the respondent- insurers to indemnify the appellant for the entire amount which is required to be paid by him under the provisions of the Act pursuant to the Award made by the Tribunal. Therefore, keeping in view the "Limits of Liability" clause contained in the Insurance policy, as quoted above, it is incumbent upon the respondent- insurers to indemnify the appellant for the entire amount which is required to be paid by him under the provisions of the Act pursuant to the Award made by the Tribunal. The facts of that case are not identical to the facts of the instant case, so that the ratio of that decision may be applicable in the instant case. Mr. S.N. Lal then laid much emphasis on his submission by filing the Tarif prescribed for payment of the premium in respect of the unlimited liability of the insured and the Tariff of the Insurance Company filed by him shows that in case of goods carrying vehicles, where the liability incurred by the insurer was unlimited then the insured had to pay extra premium of Rs. 100/- which includes the properties damage upto Rs. 1,50,000/-. In view of the fact that only a sum of Rs. 40/- has been paid as extra premium, the Tariff produced by Mr. S.N.Lal, which prescribes the payment of extra premium of Rs. 100/- for covering the unlimited risk to public and damage to the property of Rs. 1,50,000/- is not applicable in the instant case. 9. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, it would transpire that the insured had actually paid Rs. 40/- as extra premium, the question remains that whether this amount was paid for covering the unlimited liability to the public risk or enhanced the liability for damage to the property. It is the admitted position that in the column for unlimited liability to the passengers nothing has been mentioned and that column has been left blank in the policy. As such, it would mean that no additional premium was paid for covering the unlimited" liability to the third party risk, otherwise it must have been mentioned in the column prescribed therefor. There is specific column in the policy document for this purpose and in case any extra premium would have been paid for covering the unlimited liability the premium so paid by the insured must have been added in the policy itself, which has not been done in the instant case. Nowhere in the policy document there is any mention that the Insurance Company undertook the liability of covering unlimited liability to the public risk. Nowhere in the policy document there is any mention that the Insurance Company undertook the liability of covering unlimited liability to the public risk. In the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Lalmuni Devi and another 1998(2) PLJR 151 , it was held "that the decision relied upon by Mr. Lal in the case of Darshani Devi and others V/s. Shiv Ram and others 1988 ACC Vol. 1, 272 does not apply in the facts of the present case, inasmuch, as since in the column of unlimited liability to passengers nothing was paid by way of additional premium, therefore, it was not filled up. Against the column of additional unlimited liability for third party and "own damage", additional premium was paid and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has held that the Tribunal has committed error of law in holding that the entire liability for payment of compensation rests with the Insurance Company". The said decision is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as because the column prescribed for payment of additional premium for the coverage of unlimited liability to the public risk was also left blank in the instant case, which ipso- facto, means that no premium was paid for covering unlimited liability to the public risk. As such, in the facts and circumstances of the case the submission advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company that a sum of Rs. 40/- was paid for covering extra liability to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- for property damage, bears force in it and it must be held that the extra premium of Rs. 40/- was paid by the insured for that purpose. 10. What is significant to point out in this appeal is that the owner of the vehicle had contested the case but had refrained from filing the copy of the original policy document, nor took any specific plea that, a sum of Rs. 40/- was paid by him for covering unlimited liability to public risk. It was the duty of the owner of the vehicle to produce the original document of the policy in the Court in course of enquiry held by the Tribunal. However, the policy produced on behalf of the Insurance Company as discussed above is admitted in evidence. So far ratio in the case of Tulsiram Agrawal (supra) or in the case of New India Assurance Co. However, the policy produced on behalf of the Insurance Company as discussed above is admitted in evidence. So far ratio in the case of Tulsiram Agrawal (supra) or in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent are concerned, I am unable to accept the analogy that extra sum of Rs. 40/- was paid for covering the unlimited liability to the public risk and it appears that in the aforesaid decisions it was held that since a sum of Rs. 40/- was paid extra that must have been paid for covering unlimited liability to the public risk, which, in my opinion, does not appear to be correct, specially in view of the fact that when there is a specific column in the policy document for payment of extra premium for covering the unlimited liability and that column is blank in the policy document, the only inference that can be drawn is that no extra premium was paid for covering unlimited liability to public risk and, so the liability to public risk was limited only. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it must be held that payment of extra sum of Rs. 40/- must have been paid for covering the extra risk for damage to property. 11. In view of my above discussion, I hold that the learned Tribunal was not justified in holding that the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited and the Insurance Company was, liable to pay the entire amount of Award. Accordingly, I hold that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- only and the balance amount of Rs. 1,36,500/- is to be paid by owner of the vehicle in question. The Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the interest over a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the date of application till the amount is paid by it. Similarly the owner of the vehicle in question is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,36,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation of amount from the owner of the vehicle in question. The amount already paid by the Insurance Company shall be adjusted against the dues, which may be calculated against it. 12. 1,36,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation of amount from the owner of the vehicle in question. The amount already paid by the Insurance Company shall be adjusted against the dues, which may be calculated against it. 12. The cross objection filed on behalf of the claimant has not been pressed in course of hearing of this appeal and I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal, so far as the quantum of Award and interest is concerned. As such, the cross-objection is dismissed as not pressed. 13. In the resuit, therefore, this miscellaneous appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no award as to the costs.