Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal filed by appellant insurance company is directed against the judgment and award passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 79 of 1987 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,02,816 as the compensation amount to claimants-respondents for the death caused by motor vehicle accident. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. ( 3 ) THE husband of the claimant was travelling in a jeep belonging to Allahabad bank. On 25. 3. 1987 while the deceased was going for the inspection of the Branch office at Giridih a Matador bearing registration no. BPM 7167 came from opposite direction in high speed and dashed against the jeep causing instantaneous death of the deceased. Matador was insured with the appellant insurance company. Deceased was getting Rs. 9,036 per month as salary and on further promotion in near future he would have got Rs. 1,048 additional salary. The deceased was aged 45 years. The appellant insurance company contested the claim on the ground that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the jeep in which the deceased was travelling. Further case of the appellant was that the said vehicle was insured under comprehensive policy and the liability was limited to Rs. 50,000 only. The Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation to the tune of rs. 3,02,816. The Tribunal further held that since the vehicle was insured under a comprehensive policy and the copy of the policy was not proved, therefore, entire amount shall be payable by the appellant insurance company. ( 4 ) MR. A. Allam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned award on the ground that policy paper of Matador vehicle was filed but the tribunal ignored and overlooked the policy. Learned counsel submitted that from the policy it will appear that the maximum liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 50,000 and, therefore, the entire award against the appellant is bad in law. ( 5 ) ALTHOUGH from the perusal of the lower court record, it appears that copy of the insurance policy was filed by the appellant insurance company but no witness was examined on their behalf to prove the insurance policy. In my opinion, therefore, the Tribunal rightly did not consider the said insurance policy. ( 5 ) ALTHOUGH from the perusal of the lower court record, it appears that copy of the insurance policy was filed by the appellant insurance company but no witness was examined on their behalf to prove the insurance policy. In my opinion, therefore, the Tribunal rightly did not consider the said insurance policy. ( 6 ) MR. A. Allam, learned counsel put reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathilal, 1999 ACJ 657 (SC ). In that case it was held that the conclusion of unlimited liability cannot be drawn merely because the column against unlimited liability in the policy was left blank. There must be clear specification to the effect in the policy and payment of separate premium in respect thereof is necessary. In the case before the Apex Court the insurance policy was proved through the witnesses examined on behalf of insurance company and evidence was led to the effect that the liability of insurance company was limited. In the instant case it transpires from the record of the lower court that the Tribunal gave opportunity to the insurance company to adduce evidence but no witness was examined to prove the insurance policy. In my opinion, therefore, that decision will be of no help to the appellant. ( 7 ) IT is well settled that in all cases where insurance company wishes to take his defence with regard to its liability, it should file a copy of insurance policy and bring the policy on record by proving it in accordance with law. In this regard reference may be made to the decision of the apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270 (SC ). ( 8 ) BE that as it may, even assuming that the liability of the appellant was limited to rs. 50,000 it has a remedy to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle or from any person liable to pay the amount. But on that ground the claimant cannot be deprived of from the entire amount of compensation. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .