JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the impugned Award dated 13.12.1999, passed in MVC No. 201/99 old Claim Case No. 86/91, by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sihora, whereby a sum of Rs. 60,000/- has been awarded with interest @ 12% p.a. for a period of 6 years, present appeal has been filed. By the impugned Award, respondent No. 1 Insurance Co. has been exonerated. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Anil Lala, submits that in the claim petition it was a11eged that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 1 and this fact was not disputed by respondent No.1. Learned counsel further submits that learned Tribunal has observed in para 11 of the A ward that the burden to prove whether the offending vehicle was insured or not, was on the respondent No.1 and the respondent No. 1 has failed to produce any evidence in that regard. Inspite of that, respondent No.1 has been exonerated by the learned Tribunal illegally. From perusal of the A ward it appears that appellant filed photostat copy of the policy which has not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal on the ground that it has not been exhibited. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable in claim case also. As per Rule 5 of Order VIII CPC every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability. In the present case, it has not been denied by the respondent No. 1 that the offending vehicle was not insured. Learned counsel has placed reliance on AIR 1988 SC page 719 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore and others, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the attitude of not filing copy of policy of insurance is worth mentioning. In this connection what is of significance is that the claimants for compensation under the Act are invariably not possessed of either the policy or a copy thereof. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore and others, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the attitude of not filing copy of policy of insurance is worth mentioning. In this connection what is of significance is that the claimants for compensation under the Act are invariably not possessed of either the policy or a copy thereof. It has been consistently emphasized that it is the duty of the party which is in possession of a document which would be helpful in doing justice in cause to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that this duty is greater in the case the instrumentalities of the State such as the appellant Insurance Company 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. It has to be emphasized that in all such cases where the Insurance Company concerned wishes to take a defence in a claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability, it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence. Similar view has been taken by Full Bench of this Court reported in 1988 JLJ 639 = 1988 ACJ page 956 United India Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Natvarlal and others. In view of this, the appeal is allowed with costs. The impugned Award is modified to the extent that respondent No. 1 shall be liable jointly and severally for payment of the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, Sihora.