JUDGMENT Anand Byrareddy, J. This appeal is by the insurer of a motor vehicle. The first respondent while proceeding in a motor vehicle, which was insured by the appellant had suffered injuries as a result of an accident. After treatment, the said respondent had lodged a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, wherein the appellant was arraigned as the insurer of the offending vehicle apart from the owner and the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal having allowed the claim petition had held that the appellant; as the insurer of the offending vehicle was liable to meet the claim. It is this which is under challenge. 2. The Counsel for the appellant would submit that the policy of insurance in the present case is known as ‘liability only policy’. It is a Standard Form Contract and forms part of the India Motor Tariff. Notwithstanding that the fully worded contract may not have been produced before the Tribunal, the contract would clearly absolve the appellant-insurer as regards the liability towards the occupant of a private car. This is plain from the terms of the policy. Notwithstanding the same, the Tribunal having foisted the liability on the insurer is not tenable and therefore would have to be set aside. 3. From a plain reading of the Standard Form Contract, which is part of the India Motor Tariff and the fact that the policy issued in this case is a ‘liability only policy’, the appellant’s contention would have to be accepted. The respondent is not in a position to dispute this factual position except to contend that such a contention was not taken by the appellant before the Tribunal nor that the fully worded contract was produced. Having regard to Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the fact that the contract is a Standard Form Contract and that it forms part of the India Motor Tariff, it is not essential that evidence be lead to prove the contract. The same can be accepted on its face value. From a reading of the contract, it is clear that the appellant would not be liable. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The liability fastened on the appellant is set aside. It is open for the claimant to recover the amount of compensation from the owner and the driver of the vehicle. 5. From a reading of the contract, it is clear that the appellant would not be liable. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The liability fastened on the appellant is set aside. It is open for the claimant to recover the amount of compensation from the owner and the driver of the vehicle. 5. Insofar as the connected appeal, MFA No. 4770/2007 is concerned, it is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. The same is however dismissed as withdrawn. The amount in deposit is to be refunded to the appellant.