JUDGMENT 1. - This is a miscellaneous appeal filed by Insurance Company of offending vehicle under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short called 'the Act') against an award dated 23.10.1998 passed by MACT, Raisinghnagar (Sriganganagar) in Claim Case No. 36/93. 2. By impugned order, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of claimants (respondents) filed under Section 166 of the Act and in consequence awarded to the claimants a total sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- for the death of one minor boy aged 15 years by name 'Lala Ram', who died in vehicular accident. 3. According to Insurance Company (appellant herein) no liability of any nature arising out of accident in question could be fastened upon them because firstly the vehicle in question involved in the accident was used contrary to the purpose for which it was insured and secondly the risk of deceased was not covered. Both these issues were overruled by the Tribunal against the Insurance Company resulting in passing an award against the Insurance Company arising out of accident, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by the Insurance Company and questioning the correctness of these two findings, which rendered them liable to pay the awarded sum as insurer of vehicle involved in accident. 4. It is a death case, where one "Lala Ram" aged around 15 years while travelling in tractor on 24.10.92 died when it turned turtle. Since the tractor was owned by NA-3, driven by NA-1 and insured with NA-4 (appellant herein), the legal representatives filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act against these non-applicants out of which this appeal arises and claimed compensation. for the death of "Lala Ram". As observed supra, the defense of appellant (NA-4) was the one mentioned above in answer to the claim petition for denying their liability. Parties adduced evidence. 5. The Tribunal while allowing the claim petition awarded to the claimant a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the Company failed to prove their defense because they failed to file and prove the points in question, which governed the rights of the parties. 6. Parties adduced evidence. 5. The Tribunal while allowing the claim petition awarded to the claimant a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the Company failed to prove their defense because they failed to file and prove the points in question, which governed the rights of the parties. 6. Though learned counsel for the appellant (Insurance Company) has assailed the aforementioned finding in this appeal but I find no merit in the same because on facts and the manner in which the Insurance Company tried to prove the policy it cannot be upheld. 7. In the first place, the Insurance Company did not file the original or photocopy or carbon copy of the policy in question. Secondly when the policy was issued for the period 30.12.91 to 29.12.92 then the copy filed by Insurance Company was neither the photocopy of original and nor its carbon copy. It is for the reason that it was typed on the printed policy applicable to June, 92. In other words, since it was filed as duplicate one on the printed forms of June, 1992, then there was nothing to show as to whether it was having the same conditions which were part of the same policy issued in favour of insured in the year 1991. 8. The Tribunal was, therefore, of the view and in my view rightly on such facts and evidence it cannot be held that policy in question was filed and if filed it was properly proved. In other word, it was rightly held not proved. I concur with the same. 9. Since the policy was not on record for proving its breach if committed by the insured, the Tribunal in my view rightly fastened the liability arising out of accident on the insurance company. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the decision rendered in 2004 ACJ 1909 (SC), in Chinnama Case and another rendered in 2003 ACJ 1, in Asha Rani contented that no liability on such facts could be fastened upon the Insurance Company. Suffice it to say there can be no quarrel to the proposition laid down in these two decisions of Supreme Court but it has no application to the facts of this case. Suffice it to say there can be no quarrel to the proposition laid down in these two decisions of Supreme Court but it has no application to the facts of this case. If the facts and evidence is wanting in this case as taken note of supra, then in such event, law though support the appellant cannot be pressed in service for giving effect to it for deciding the issue in their favour. In this case, for want of evidence, the defence of Insurance Company cannot be accepted. 11. It being a case of death of young boy aged 15 years an award of Rs. 1,20,000/- seems to be in fact on lower side. However, since there is no cross-appeal or objection filed by claimants enhancement in the award of compensation, I do not wish to examine being the Insurer of offending vehicle. 12. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed.No cost.Appeal Dismissed. *******