JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. - This appeal has been filed by Insurance Company challenging the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Shimla. By means of impugned award in MAC No. 54-S/2 of 1991, dated 25.10.1994, a sum of Rs. 38,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of petition (i.e. 31.8.1991) has been passed in favour of respondent and against the appellant. 2. At the time of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company stated that the scooter in question owned by respondent No. 2 Vijay Singh Jamwal, its being insured with his client is not disputed. Sole ground raised by him in support of this appeal was, that admittedly as well, as on proved facts deceased Gauri Nand Sharma was a pillion rider on the scooter bearing registration No. HP-07-0924. This was owned by respondent Vijay Singh Jamwal and as already noted insured with it (appellant). 3. With a view to advance appellants case, Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel placed reliance in Surjit Singh and another v. Santosh Kumari and others, 1989 ACJ 466 (P&H) and George Oakes Company v. V.S. Govindarajan and others, 1999(2) T.A.C. 561 (Karnt.). He further urged that no extra premium was charged by the appellant so as to cover the risk of a pillion rider as in the present case. Nor. either in fact or in law appellant was required to cover such a risk. 4. All these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1-claimant. He submitted that both these pleas are not open to the Insurance Company keeping in view peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Per him not only this, but Insurance Company has failed to lead any evidence so as to get itself exonerated of the liability in terms of the impugned award. He also referred to decision in cases Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another v. Minaxi and others, 1999(11) ACC 622, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sushila Tripathi and others, 1999(11) ACC 401 (DB). 5. He also referred to decision in cases Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another v. Minaxi and others, 1999(11) ACC 622, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sushila Tripathi and others, 1999(11) ACC 401 (DB). 5. With a view to establish the plea, that the., appellant was not liable for satisfying the award in case of a pillion rider, first and foremost requirement was to produce legally acceptable and trustworthy evidence by it (the appellant), indicating what was that risk covered in terms of the policy of insurance, what was not and whether extra-premium had been charged to cover the risk of a pillion rider or not. 6. It hardly needs to be pointed out here that all exclusions in law need’ to be proved by the Insurance Company. In case there was a breach of policy condition, burden was on the Insurance Company to prove the same. 7. Further this Court cannot loose sight of fact that the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act particularly dealing with compulsory insurance and payment of compensation are a piece of beneficial legislation. It has to be given a liberal meaning with a view to achieve the object for which those provisions have been enacted. If a narrow and pedantic approach is adopted by the Court, it will defeat the very purpose of making provisions as aforesaid. 8. In case Narchinva v. Kamat and another, AIR 1985 SC 1281 it was held as under :- 15. To sum up the Insurance Company failed to prove that there was a breach of the term of the contract of insurance as evidenced by the policy of insurance on the ground that the driver who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time did not have a valid driving licence. Once the Insurance Company failed to prove that aspect, its liability under the contract of insurance remains intact and unhampered and it was bound to satisfy the award under the comprehensive policy of insurance." 9. To similar effect is another case Sakandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan and others, AIR 1987 SC 1184. 10. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company was specifically called upon to show from the evidence before the learned Tribunal below as to how exclusion has been proved so as to exonerate the appellant from satisfying the award. To similar effect is another case Sakandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan and others, AIR 1987 SC 1184. 10. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company was specifically called upon to show from the evidence before the learned Tribunal below as to how exclusion has been proved so as to exonerate the appellant from satisfying the award. After having gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record, we find that no evidence what so ever has been produced either oral or documentary by the appellant. Minimum that was expected of it was to have produced the insurance policy and thereafter proved the same in accordance with law. No such effort appears to have been made by the appellant. 11. In case National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nathibai Chautabhuj and others, 1982 A.C.J. 153 while dealing with the plea of an insured like the appellant in the present case who wanted to disclaim its liability held as under :- 23. xxx xxx xxx xxx The insurer, if he wants to disclaim the liability to satisfy the decree that may be passed in favour of the claimant in such an action, will have to established:- (1) that on the date of the contract of insurance, the insured vehicle was expressly or implicity not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, that is, by a permit to carry any passenger for hire or reward; (2) that there was a specified condition in the policy which excluded the use of the insured vehicle for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and (3) that the vehicle was, in fact, used in the breach of such specified condition on the occasion giving rise to the claim. If all these facts are established by the insurer, then, by virtue of section 96(2)(b)(i)(a), he may succeed in avoiding the liability to satisfy the decree that may come to be passed in the action. In such a case, the coverage of the insured vehicle by a permit to ply for hire or reward; which does not authorise the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, on the date of the contract of insurance, would be a matter of no consequence. In such a case, the coverage of the insured vehicle by a permit to ply for hire or reward; which does not authorise the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, on the date of the contract of insurance, would be a matter of no consequence. Besides, it is a matter of no consideration that the insured vehicle was used for carrying, passengers for hire or reward only on the occasion in question or occasionally and not regularly. The motor vehicle must be regarded, when used to carry passengers for hire or reward whether on a single or few occasions, as a transport vehicle, and, therefore, required to be covered by a permit for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward." 12. Due to such non-production of policy and proving it, adverse inference needs to be drawn against the appellant under Indian Evidence Act; i.e. that in case the policy had been placed and proved in accordance with law, it would have negatived its claim that Insurance Company is not liable for satisfying the award in case of a pillion rider, like the present one. 13. Since we have taken the view that exclusion has not been proved by the appellant Insurance Company an adverse inference also needs to be a drawn against it for such non-production, decisions relied upon by Mr. Sharma are of no benefit to the appellant so far present appeal is concerned. Accordingly, no reference is being made to the decisions referred to-here-in-above on behalf of the appellant. 14. On the other hand we find that the decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sushila Tripathi and others (supra), is in consonance with the object of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. For ready reference paragraph 30 of this judgment is extracted herein below: "30. In view of above, since the scooter of respondent No. 6 was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 5, due to which it met with an accident resulting in. the death of Prafulla Kumar Tripathi and since the scooter was admittedly owned by respondent No. 6 and was insured by respondent No. 7, hence the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 would be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.;. the death of Prafulla Kumar Tripathi and since the scooter was admittedly owned by respondent No. 6 and was insured by respondent No. 7, hence the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 would be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.;. It may be pointed out in this connection that it has been averred on behalf of respondent No. 7 that since the deceased was a pillion rider, he was not covered by the terms of the policy. However, the policy document has not been produced by the respondent No. 7 and, therefore, it has failed to discharge its burden of proving the breach of any condition of the policy." Situation is identical in the present case. 15. In Oriental insurance Company Limited-.and another v. Minaxi and others (supra), relevant facts as well as the pleas urged in this case are extracted herein below :- "5. That, the first two appeals are directed against the common order dated 22.9.1993 in M.V.C. Nos. 21/92 and 22/92 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1 Bijapur, in passing whereof, the said Tribunal had passed an award of Rs. 20,000.00 and Rs. 12,500.00 each to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1. had filed the above two claim petitions one for self for the personal injury suffered in the accident, whereas the second claim petition was made by her due to the death of her one and half years old child a pillion rider when her husband, Shankargouda Patil driven the Yezdi Motor cycle bearing registration No. CNL 2338 in a rash and negligent manner and the accident in question had taken place in his hands on 27.9.1991. It is stated that the vehicle belonged to the respondent No. 3 in the first two appeals and the appellant-Insurance Company had issued Act Policy by accepting premium of Rs. 40/-covering third part risk, xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx "8. Both the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-Insurance Company, Mr. S.P. Shankar as well as Mr. It is stated that the vehicle belonged to the respondent No. 3 in the first two appeals and the appellant-Insurance Company had issued Act Policy by accepting premium of Rs. 40/-covering third part risk, xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx "8. Both the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-Insurance Company, Mr. S.P. Shankar as well as Mr. O. Mahesh, vehemently argued that in covering the third part risk under the two separate insurance policies in respect of the above two vehicles involved in two different accidents did no cover the risk of pillion riders and according to them, there would have been a contract between the appellant-Insurance Company on the one side and the owners on the other for covering additional risk of the pillion riders. It was argued before me that the third party risk does not include the risk of the pillion riders." 16. This judgment further indicates that Court had sought assistance from another senior advocate on the panel of Insurance Company. Then after referring to circular issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee Bombay vide No. MOT/GEN/10 dated 2nd June, 1986 the learned Judge negatived the plea of the Insurance Company. This circular was issued to all the four insurance companies, including of the appellant. This circular is of 1986. Accident in the instant case is of 18.4.1991. Nothing to the contrary either rescinding the same or said circular having been withdrawn was brought to our notice on behalf of the appellant. This is an additional reason to hold that the withholding of policy was intentional and purposeful on the part of the appellant. 17. No other point is urged. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no-merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. At the same time it is ordered that the balance amount lying in deposit in the Registry of this Court be released in favour of respondent No. 1 after getting the FDR renewed till 31.5.2003. Bank account number will be furnished by her in the Registry within four weeks and amount will be transited to her said account on 1.6.2003 along with upto date interest. 19. Costs on the parties. -