Judgment Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Divisional Manager, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, Motijheel, Muzaffarpur, for setting aside the judgment dated 30.1.97 and award dated 18.2.97 passed by Sri Paras Nath, 3rd Additional District Judge-cum- Additional Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur, in Claim Case No. 25 of 1982, whereby the learned Tribunal has fastened entire liability to the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the tune of rupees ninety two thousand with interest @ 12% per annum to the applicants. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: One Ramashray Bhagat aged about 45 years met with an accident on 18.9.82 at about 1.30 P.M. near Panapur Chowk on NH 28 within Muzaffarpur district. The vehicle involved in the accident was a bus bearing registration No. BHF 733. It is alleged that the said bus was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, as a result of which the bus firstly hit a standing Tractor bearing registration no. BHF 3628 and due to the impact of the said dashing the tractor hit the Trailor bearing registration no. 3629 and the Trailor jumped upon the body of the deceased Ramashray Bhagat, who was standing by the side of the Tractor. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained multiple injuries. He was taken to Muzaffarpur Sadar Hospital in unconscious condition where he died on the same day. For the said accident, a criminal case bearing Meenapur PS. case no. 84 dated 18.9.98 under Sections 279, 304-A, 338 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted. It is said that the deceased was aged about 42 years at the time of accident and he would have lived up to the age of 80 years as he was hale and hearty. He was cultivator and was also doing job of vegetable seller in the daily market. The applicants were dependent upon him and due to his untimely death the applicants suffered mental as well as monetary loss and, as such, a sum of Rs. 2,20,000.00 was claimed towards compensation. 3. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, the owners and driver of the concerned vehicle appeared and filed their written statement and claimed that the vehicle, in question, was insured under the appellant-company i.e. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as "Insurance Company"). 2,20,000.00 was claimed towards compensation. 3. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, the owners and driver of the concerned vehicle appeared and filed their written statement and claimed that the vehicle, in question, was insured under the appellant-company i.e. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as "Insurance Company"). The appellant-Insurance Company also appeared and filed written statement in which the appellant admitted that the vehicle, in question, was insured under the Insurance Company but its liability under Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred as "Act") is limited up to the extent of rupees fifty thousand only. 4. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the tribunal proceeded to examine the witnesses and thereafter on 30th January, 1997, the tribunal delivered the judgment and awarded total compensation at Rs. 92,000.00 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the final payment. The Tribunal further directed the Insurance Company-appellant to satisfy the entire award as the tribunal found that the vehicle, in question, was insured under the appellant-insurance company. 5. Against the said award, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this Miscellaneous Appeal. 6. During the course of argument, learned Advocate of the appellant submitted that he is not challenging the judgment of the Tribunal on the point of quantum of compensation nor he is challenging the factum of accident. His appeal is solely based on the ground that the Tribunal can not impose entire liability on the appellant-Insurance Company in excess of the statutory liability as contained under Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , wherein the maximum liability of the Insurance Company has been fixed at Rs. 50,000.00 (fifty thousand). He submitted that by fastening the entire liability on the appellant-Insurance Company and by directing the appellant to pay the entire compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 92,0007- with 12% interest per annum the Tribunal has committed grave error of law. Thus, on the basis of argument advanced by the learned lawyer of the appellant the only point for consideration before me is whether in view of the provision of Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , the Tribunal can direct the insurance Company to pay compensation beyond the maximum liability of Rs. 50,000/-(fifty thousand). 7. Thus, on the basis of argument advanced by the learned lawyer of the appellant the only point for consideration before me is whether in view of the provision of Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , the Tribunal can direct the insurance Company to pay compensation beyond the maximum liability of Rs. 50,000/-(fifty thousand). 7. For appreciating the argument of the learned Advocate of the appellant, I would like to reproduce Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act which runs as follows: "Section 95-(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely:- (a)............ (b) Where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment- (i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all;" 8. From the plain reading of Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Act, it is clear that the maximum liability of the insurer is fixed at rupees fifty thousand in respect of any one accident. Apparently, the argument of the learned Advocate of the appellant is that the appellant can not be asked to pay the compensation amount in excess of statutory liability but the argument of the learned Advocate of the respondents is that it was incumbent duty of the appellant-Insurance Company to bring the insurance policy on record to prove that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited only up to rupees fifty thousand and in absence of the policy the tribunal has rightly held that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount. 9. In support of the argument, learned Advocate of the respondent no. 4 has placed reliance upon the decision reported in AIR 1988 SC page 719 (National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Jugal Kistiore and Ors.). He has placed reliance upon placitum (B) of the said decision in which it has been observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court that in all cases where the Insurance Company 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. Learned Advocate basing his argument on the said decision submitted that in this case also the appellant-Insurance Company has failed to bring on record the insurance policy and, as such, the plea that the appellant-Insurance Company can not be asked to pay the compensation in excess of the statutory liability can not be accepted. He has further placed his reliance on the decision of our own High Court reported in 1989 BLJR page 230 given in the case of The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Barun Kumar Pandey and Anr. in which it was held that if the insurer did not bring the insurance policy on record, it was stopped and precluded from raising the defence that its liability was limited to the statutory liability in terms of Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Act. 10. Armed with the above decisions, learned Advocate of the respondent no. 4 as well as the applicants argued that as the appellant-Insurance Company has failed to bring on record the insurance policy, as such, the appellant-Insurance Company is precluded to argue that the Tribunal was not empowered to direct the appellant to pay the compensation in excess of the statutory amount. The learned Advocate of the respondent no. 4 has also placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1981 Andhra Pradesh page 227 (The United Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. P. Parvathamma). 11. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate of the appellant that in this case the owner has contested the claim by filing written statement and before this Court also the owner is contesting this appeal. The learned Advocate submitted that as per the pleading of the Insurance Company at paragraph 17 of the written statement, the Insurance Company has pleaded that the companys liability to pay the compensation was limited up to rupees fifty thousand only and although it is true that the Insurance Company did not bring on record the insurance policy but then it was the responsibility of the owner to prove that the policy was comprehensive and it covered higher liability because of the fact that for third party insurance a higher premium had been paid by the owner of the vehicle. He submitted that in absence of such pleading by the owner of the vehicle or in absence of any such evidence brought on record on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, no finding against the statutory provision can be given that the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited. In support of his argument, learned Advocate of the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision reported in (2002)2 Supreme Court Cases page 278 given in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. CM. Jaya and Ors. and 2006(2) PLJR page 98 given in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Saroj Gupta & Anr. In both the decisions, it has been held that the liability of insurer in respect of third party risk as provided under Section 95(2) of the Act (1939 Act) is limited upto rupees fifty thousand only and in absence of any special agreement between the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle to pay higher compensation than the statutory amount mentioned in Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Act, no unlimited liability can be imposed on the company. 12. In the instant case, it is admitted position that neither the owner nor the insurer (appellant) has brought on record the insurance policy. The question is where both the owner as well as the insurer are contesting the case it is whose primary responsibility to bring on record the insurance policy. I am of the opinion that since the original policy remains always in the hands of the owner, as such, it is the primary responsibility of the owner to bring on record the original policy specially when the owner desires to take advantage of certain clause in the agreement by which he becomes entitled to ask the Insurance Company to pay more than the statutory amount fixed under the statute. 13. Since before me there is nothing on record to hold that the insurer had taken higher liability by accepting higher premium for payment of compensation to a third party, the appellant-Insurance Company can not be held liable to pay compensation beyond the statutory limit of rupees fifty thousand as provided under Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Act. 14. 13. Since before me there is nothing on record to hold that the insurer had taken higher liability by accepting higher premium for payment of compensation to a third party, the appellant-Insurance Company can not be held liable to pay compensation beyond the statutory limit of rupees fifty thousand as provided under Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Act. 14. In view of the discussions made above, I hold that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the extent of rupees fifty thousand only being its statutory liability and the rest amount i.e. rupees forty two thousand is payable by the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent no. 4. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the liability of the appellant to indemnify the award is fixed at Rs. 50,000.00 (fifty thousand) only but regarding the quantum of compensation the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the Tribunal is upheld. Since the appellant company has already paid Rs. 50,000.00 (fifty thousand) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, as such, the appellant Company is discharged from its liability and the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent no. 4 is directed to pay the remaining amount of compensation amounting to Rs. 42,000.00 (forty two thousand) to the claimants within three months from the date of this judgment. It is further ordered that if the amount is paid in one lump sum within the stipulated period of three months then no interest will be charged on the said amount as agreed by the lawyer of the claimants as well as the lawyer appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle but in case of failure the amount will be recoverable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as ordered by the Tribunal. 16. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.