K.S. Radhakrishnan. CJ. 1. Claimant has preferred this appeal challenging the findings of the learned Single Judge that the liability of the insurance company was limited and also the order reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal after entertaining the cross objection preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle. 2. Claimant sustained injuries in a road accident occurred on March 9, 1988 when a Taxi Car hit a Scooter driven by him. On facts, it was found that the Taxi driver was rash and negligent. Taxi was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited. As a result of the accident, the claimant had suffered multiple fractures on his left leg. Rs. 11.00 lacs were claimed as compensation. Claim petition was decided on April 26, 1990 awarding an amount of Rs. 2.27 lacs and the insurance company was held liable to pay Rs. 50,000 with interest. Balance award amount was directed to be paid by the owner of the Taxi, i.e., the offending vehicle. Award was, however, set aside at the instance of the owner of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal passed the, fresh award on May 15, 1994 enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2.27 lacs to Rs. 3,30,000/-. Tribunal also held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited. 3. Insurance company aggrieved by that part of the award holding the liability of the insurance company as unlimited, preferred CIMA no. 107 of 1994 before the learned Single Judge. Cross objection was preferred by the owner challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The finding regarding negligence was also questioned. It was contended before the Learned Single Judge that copy of the insurance policy was already filed before the Tribunal and it was proved by examining a competent officer which would indicate that the liability of the insurance company was limited. On the other hand, contention was raised by the claimant that since Unoriginal of the policy was not produced and hence the Tribunal was justified in holding that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited. Contention was also raised that the owner of the vehicle was not justified in filing cross objection challenging the quantum of compensation in the appeal preferred by the insurance company and that no cross objection would lie in the eye of law. 4. Contention was also raised that the owner of the vehicle was not justified in filing cross objection challenging the quantum of compensation in the appeal preferred by the insurance company and that no cross objection would lie in the eye of law. 4. The learned Single Judge took the view that there was no illegality in placing reliance on the copy of the policy produced by the insurance company which was proved by examining an officer of the insurance company. Learned Judge also took the view that liability of the insurance company was limited as per the policy produced and no extra premium was paid by owner of the vehicle. The Learned Judge further took the view that cross objection preferred by the owner of the vehicle was maintainable. On facts, the learned Judge found that the amount awarded was on the higher side and fixed the compensation at Rs. 95,000/-. The liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 50,000/- and the remaining amount, i.e., Rs. 45,000/- was to be paid by the owner of the vehicle with 12% interest from the date of the application. 5. Mr. Z.A. Shah, learned senior counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in placing reliance on the policy since the same was not proved following the provisions of Order 11 Rules 12 & 14 and Order 12 of the CPC and Sections 64 and 65 of Evidence Act. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the learned Single Judge was also not justified in entertaining the cross objection in the appeal preferred by the insurance company. It was also contended that the right to file cross objection is a substantive right and unless it is specifically prescribed, no right accrues to file a cross objection. Reference was also made to Section 110-D of the old Act and few decided cases. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Superintending Engineer v. B. Subba Reddy, (1999) 4 SCC 423. 6. Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company supported the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle submitted that the owner is no more and, therefore, his legal heirs may not be burdened with the liability. 6. Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company supported the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle submitted that the owner is no more and, therefore, his legal heirs may not be burdened with the liability. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly fixed the amount of compensation which does not warrant any interference and, in any view of the matter, the insurance company should have been made liable for the entire amount awarded. 7. We heard learned counsel on either side at length. 8. We first examine whether the liability of the insurance company was limited? The claimant himself has stated in the claim petition the number of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle as 4574113328/920. A copy of the very same policy was produced by the insurance company before the Tribunal. The policy produced by the insurance company was proved by examining a competent officer. The original of the policy is, naturally, with the owner and the same was not produced by the owner. So far as the insurance company is concerned, we are of the view that they have discharged their burden. In the absence of the original, the insurance company produced a copy of the policy and the same was proved by examining a competent officer. In such a circumstance, we are of the view, the learned Single Judge was right in placing reliance on the copy of the policy produced by the insurance company. Basing on that, the learned Judge held the liability of the insurance company was limited. The Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270 (SC) held that it is the duty of the party which is in possession of a document which would be helpful in doing justice in the cause to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. The Apex Court also held that in all such 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 insurance policy along with its defence. In this connection, reference may also be made to the Apex Court decision in New India Assurance Co. In this connection, reference may also be made to the Apex Court decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jayti, (2002) 2 SCC 278 and Division Bench judgments of this Court in Kewal Krishan v. Krishna Devi, 2001 ACJ 1029 and of the High Court of Kerala in Rajan v. Sukwnaran, 1997 ACJ 778 as also to the Madras High Court judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vdanwial, AIR 2000 Madras 476. 9. We are of the view that going by the principle laid down in the Apex Court judgment, we affirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge that liability of the insurance company was limited. 10. We are now concerned with the question as to whether the cross objection preferred by the owner was maintainable or not. The accident had taken place when the old Act of 1939 was in operation and the claim petition was preferred under Section 110-D of the 1939 Act. Appeal also, therefore, can be preferred under Section 110-D of the old Act. In 1939 Act, there was no condition for pre-deposit for preferring an appeal and, therefore, the owner could prefer appeal without any pre-deposit. The necessity of filing cross objection arose only when the insurance company challenged the award. The Tribunal had held that liability of the insurance company was unlimited. If that award was not challenged, there would have been no necessity for the owner to file appeal. It is only when the insurance company filed the appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal that its liability was unlimited, the owner filed cross objection which, in ourr view, is as good as an appeal preferred by the owner of the vehicle. 11. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Janki Devi, AIR 1982 Allahabad 296, while dealing with the scope of Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 held that if a person has a right of appeal under Section 96 or Section 100 of the CPC, he may exercise that right within a period of limitation and in case he fails to do so, the Court enables him to exercise that very right when the other party has preferred an appeal to the court competent to hear it. The right to avail of the same procedure is available to a person who has a right of appeal conferred by the special statute, i.e., the right to file a cross objection is included in the right to appeal conferred by the statute. The Apex Court in Superintending Engineer v. B. Subba Reddy, (1999) 4 SCC 423 held that cross objection is like an appeal. It has all the trappings of an appeal. It is true that in the judgment the Apex Court has held that filing of cross objection is not procedural in nature, meaning thereby that filing of cross objection is just like an appeal. Unless right of appeal is conferred, the remedy of appeal cannot be availed of. The cross objection preferred by the owner of the vehicle is just like an appeal. In this connection, reference may also be made to the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prema, 2002 ACJ 1889, wherein the Full Court has held that the claimant is entitled to prefer a cross objection in the appeal preferred by the insurance company. 12. In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, we fully agree with ld. Single Judge that cross objection filed by owner of the vehicle is maintainable. 13. On facts also, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the learned Single Judge. Taking note of the injuries sustained and the fact that owner of the vehicle is no more, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge is just and fair. Learned Single Judge also awarded 12% interest. Normally, going by the judgments of the Apex Court, interest of 7.5% would be reasonable but in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not want to disturb that findings of the learned Single Judge. Dismissed as above.