JUDGMENT S. D. Anand, J.:- This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO No.213 and 214 of 1985 as common question of law and fact is involved therein. Crossobjections filed by Chand Kaur and Baljit Kaur (LRs of deceased Gurjant Singh – in the former FAO) shall also stand disposed of by this order. 2. Gurjant Singh and Sita Rani were travelling by bus No.PUU- 8955 (of which respondent No.1 is the registered owner) on 9.7.1983, the former having boarded the bus from Amritsar to travel upto Faridkot and the latter having boarded from village Mudki for going to village Kotkapura. The bus was being driven, at the relevant point of time, by respondent Jagrup Singh. When the bus reached near the brick-kiln, it turned turtle on account of the fact that it was being driven at a rash speed and in a negligent manner and respondent Jagrup Singh lost control over it. On that account, Gurjant Singh and Sita Rani died. MACT case No.27 of 1983 was preferred by Neelam, Madhu, Happy and Manju, all minor daughters of deceased Sita Rani; while MACT case No.28 of 1983 was filed by Baljit Kaur (wife of Gurjant Singh), Bohar Singh, Inderjeet Singh and Sukhmander Kaur @ Gudi (minor children of Baljit Kaur whom she begotten from the loins of her deceased-husband Gurjant Singh) and Mst.Chand Kaur (mother of deceased Gurjant Singh). The petitioners in both the petitions claimed compensation on an averment that the impugned accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Jagrup Singh. 3. The driver and the registered owner denied the allegation that the impugned accident had occurred in the manner averred by the petitioners aforementioned and pleaded that the accident occurred on account of the act of God because the main leaf of the bus got broken. 4. In MACT No.27 of 4.8.1983, compensation of Rs.25,800/- was awarded in favour of the petitioners. The appellant - Insurance Company and the registered owner/driver – respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. 5. In MACT No.28 of 5.9.1983, though the learned Tribunal held that the petitioners in that case were entitled to a compensation of Rs.64,000/-, it further held that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence to the causing of accident to the extent of 40%. 5. In MACT No.28 of 5.9.1983, though the learned Tribunal held that the petitioners in that case were entitled to a compensation of Rs.64,000/-, it further held that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence to the causing of accident to the extent of 40%. In the light thereof, the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners was reduced to Rs.38,400/-. 6. The appellant (before this Court) - Insurer raised a plea of exoneration from liability on an averment that Gurjant Singh was an unauthorised passenger who was travelling on the roof which (travel on the roof) was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Qua the quantum of liability, it was averred that it is restricted upto the statutory limit inasmuch as no extra premium for coverage of other passengers was proved to have been paid. 7. I have heard Mr.LM Suri, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and have carefully gone through the file. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to make a presentation before this Court on the date the judgment was reserved and even thereafter till date. None turned up either on behalf of the legal heirs of deceased Gurjant Singh and Sita Rani who had filed the cross-objections to contest the findings on point of contributory negligence. 8. Mr.Suri argued that the liability of the insurer would be restricted to the statutory extent in the absence of proof that extra premium for coverage of passengers had been paid by the insured. 9. The plea raised is completely bereft of merit. In this matter, the learned Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding that the insurer did not produce the policy of insurance inspite of the fact that an adjournment for the purpose aforementioned had been obtained and no reasons were forthcoming for the inability on the part of the insurer to prove that policy. The relevant fact-based observations, recorded by the learned Tribunal, are re-produced as under: “The Insurance company has failed to bring on record the policy of Insurance and in such premises, it cannot be held that the Insurance Company had agreed to indemnify the insured only to the extent indicated in the statutory provisions. The relevant fact-based observations, recorded by the learned Tribunal, are re-produced as under: “The Insurance company has failed to bring on record the policy of Insurance and in such premises, it cannot be held that the Insurance Company had agreed to indemnify the insured only to the extent indicated in the statutory provisions. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is so insurance company despite having obtained an adjournment to bring on record the Insurance policy failed to produce the same and even no reasons were advanced for with-holding the policy.” 10. In support of that view, the learned Tribunal had placed upon a Division Bench ruling of this Court reported as Ajit Singh Vs. Sham Lal and others, 1984 ACJ 255. The judicial pronouncement aforesaid is fully supportive of the view obtained by the learned Tribunal with which I concur. 11. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant upon Jullundur Transport Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Raj Wali and others, 1989 ACJ 901 and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt.Shanti Bai & others, JT 1995(2) SC 95 in support of the advocated view is mis-conceived. In both these cases, there is no indication that the Insurance Company had obtained adjournment to produce the insurance policy. Even otherwise, it may be noticed that the insurer would obviously be in possession of the entire record culminating in the issuance of the impugned insurance policy. It was the plea of the insurer only that its liability is restricted to the extent of the statutory liability. In that view of things, it was incumbent upon the insurer to produce on file the insurance policy with a view to buttress its plea. If the insurer was disabled from producing that insurance policy for one reason or the other, it was for it to make the presentation of the handicap before the learned Tribunal. As already noticed, the learned Tribunal has recorded a precise finding that the insurer did obtain adjournment for purposes of production of insurance policy but it neither produced it nor did it indicate any reasons for the non production thereof. The plea raised by the insurer for restriction of its liability to the extent of statutory liability shall, accordingly, stand negatived. 12. The plea raised by the insurer for restriction of its liability to the extent of statutory liability shall, accordingly, stand negatived. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant, then, argued that the insurer cannot, at all, be held liable to pay compensation in respect of Gurjant Singh who was unauthorised passenger and was travelling on the roof of the bus. Reliance, in support of the canvassed view, was placed upon The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. The Samundri Roadways Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others, 1984 PLR 689. There also, learned counsel for the appellant, is not on a firmer footing. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the driver and the registered owner, in the course of a joint written statement, did plead that Gurjant Singh was an unauthorised passenger and was travelling on the roof without their notice. However, they have not been able to establish that fact. It may be noticed that the driver-respondent Jagrup Singh appeared at the trial as RW1; while conductor Naib Singh appeared as RW2. Insofar as the latter witness is concerned, he conceded in the course of cross-examination that he had not seen any person sitting on the roof of the bus. He proceeded to aver that 60 persons were travelling inside the bus and that he had issued tickets to all of them. He did not produce the record regarding the issuance of tickets to all the 60 passengers aforementioned. It was suggested to him that he had intentionally not produced the record pertaining to the issuance of tickets to the number of persons averred by him. It was also suggested to him that only 40-45 persons were travelling in the bus. He denied the suggestion as incorrect. It may be noticed that a normal bus would have a capacity of about 50 persons. The tenor of the suggestion indicated that Gurjant Singh was, in fact, travelling inside the bus only and there was no occasion for him to travel on the roof of the bus. This could best be rebutted by the witness aforementioned by producing the record pertaining to the sale of tickets. If he had produced the same, it would have enabled him to prove that about 60 persons were travelling inside the bus and that he had issued tickets to all of them. This could best be rebutted by the witness aforementioned by producing the record pertaining to the sale of tickets. If he had produced the same, it would have enabled him to prove that about 60 persons were travelling inside the bus and that he had issued tickets to all of them. On account of the non-production of the record, it is apparent that the plea taken up by him is false. 13. Insofar as PW1 Jagrup Singh is concerned, he was driving the offending vehicle. He obviously could not have noticed whether Gurjant Singh was travelling inside the bus or not. 14. Insofar as the cross-objections are concerned, there is want of acceptable evidence to prove that Gurjant Singh was actually travelling on the roof of the bus. For the reasons noticed in para No.10 of this order, the obvious inference is that the cross-objections deserve to be accepted. Cross-objections shall stand allowed accordingly. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on point of contributory negligence shall stand set aside with necessary consequences thereof in the context of liability of the insured and appellant-insurer to pay the total amount of compensation. 15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, both the pleas raised on behalf of the appellant stand negatived. The FAOs are held to be devoid of merit and are ordered to be dismissed. ————————