ORDER 1. Mr. Bhowmick, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged only two points in support of his appeal; firstly that the liability of the appellant being statutory was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/- and, therefore, the appellant should not have been burdened by any higher liability to pay the awarded amount and secondly, that the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the accident did not have any valid driving licence. 2. In so far as the second ground is concerned, this has not at all been raised in the memo of appeal. In so far as the first ground is concerned, that was indeed raised as Ground No. (x) which reads thus :-- "(x) For that the statutory liability to pay compensation is to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- by the appellant and therefore, when the appellant has been ordered to pay compensation with interest on Rs. 2,88,028,80 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction." 3. Apart from the fact that the aforesaid averments are vague and evasive, what we find is that the appellant-Insurance Company did not lead and evidence during the course of the trial nor it did produce the insurance policy in question nor it did take any steps to establish or prove before the Tribunal that in fact the liability was restricted to the statutory limit and, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay any amount higher than that. If an Insurance Company pleads that its liability is restricted to statutory limits it is the duty of the Insurance Company to establish this fact by production of the insurance policy and by leading evidence to show that it had received premium only covering the statutory liability and that higher premium was not paid and hence the company was not liable to pay higher amount. 4. As far as the issue relating to driving licence is concerned neither is there any pleading nor was any evidence led on this by the company nor was this fact proved in any manner. 5. Since on both counts the appellant failed to prove the assertions we find no merit in this appeal. 6. In the award under challenge in this appeal the Tribunal held defendant Nos. 1 and 6 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. 5. Since on both counts the appellant failed to prove the assertions we find no merit in this appeal. 6. In the award under challenge in this appeal the Tribunal held defendant Nos. 1 and 6 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. Because the Tribunal had held the insurance Company liable to pay the entire compensation amount awarded, there was no justification, reason or ground for holding the defendant No. 1 also liable along with defendant No. 6, jointly and severally or otherwise. If a vehicle is covered by a contract of insurance and the Insurance Company has been held liable to pay the awarded amount why should the owner be at all held liable to pay is not understood by us. That defeats the very purpose of taking out an insurance policy. 7. Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent that the appellant- Insurance Company is alone held liable to pay the awarded amount along with interest as determined by the Tribunal. 8. To the aforesaid extent, therefore, cross-objections filed by the owner- defendant No. 1 respondent No. 5 are allowed. 9. On a perusal of the judgment under appeal we find that the Tribunal had assessed the compensation amount fairly and justly, looking to the age of the deceased, his income and thus by application of 16 as a multiplier which, in the facts and circumstances of the case was appropriately applied. 10. The cross-objections filed by the claimants are dismissed. 11. The appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.