Judgment HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. This order shall dispose of bunch of appeals placed before this Bench on a Reference made by the Division Bench of this Court on 23.5.1988 as to whether the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.15,000/- per passenger or unlimited under the provisions of Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act). 2. The said order passed by the Division Bench reads as under :- "The main case taken up on urgent motion. It is contended by Mr. Suri that the words "such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939", occurring in the insurance policy intend to cover the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and since sub-clause (b) thereof would apply to the instant case, the liability of the insurance company was upto Rs.15,000/- for each individual passenger. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pt. Ram Parkash and others v. Smt. Kanta Suri and another, 1987(2) FIR 169, where this provision came to be specifically interpreted and a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Chand Kanwar v. Manaram, 1986 ACJ 269 : (AIR 1986 Raj 2) was distinguished. The term in the insurance policy being comprehensive enough would come to meet the requirements of any other provision of the Motor Vehicles Act as well. It is noticeable that Chapter VIII of the said Act covering insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party risk has in it not only Section 95 but Section 110-B as well and under Section 110-B the power of the claims tribunal to award compensation is not curtailed in any manner. We are prima facie of the view that the aforequoted entry in the insurance policy is wide enough to bring within its ambit such liability as may be required to be met under Section 110-B of the Act. Admitted F.B." 3 The present reference arises as a Division Bench of this Court in Pt. Ram Parkashs case (supra) has taken a view that the Insurance Company has limited liability in respect of the passenger of a motor vehicle. Admitted F.B." 3 The present reference arises as a Division Bench of this Court in Pt. Ram Parkashs case (supra) has taken a view that the Insurance Company has limited liability in respect of the passenger of a motor vehicle. The correctness of the said judgment was doubted by the Division Bench of this Court in the order mentioned above, primarily on the basis of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Chand Kanwars case, (AIR 1986 Raj 2) (supra), that since the policy issued by the Insurance Company is comprehensive, it is to meet the requirement of any other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured of the entire liability. Before we examine the respective contentions of the patties, the brief facts from FAO No. 410 of 1988 out of which the said Reference has arisen, need be stated. 4. A private bus bearing registration No. RSO 2850 owned by one Shashi Kant Gupta met with an accident on 19.4.1986 at about 7.00 a.m. in the area of village Gadhauli, Police Station Chhappar, District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana). Many passengers died while others received multiple injuries. As many as 28 claim applications were preferred to claim compensation either by the legal heirs on account of death of the passengers or by the injured in respect of the injuries received in the said motor vehicular accident. The owner of the bus denied that there was any negligence of the driver in causing the accident, whereas the Insurance Company, the present appellant, raised a plea that its liability is limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger. 5. The learned Tribunal found that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the bus driver. It also found that the liability of the Insurance Company is not limited as there is difference between the Insurance Policy produced by the owner of the vehicle and that by the Insurance Company and there is no limit mentioned against the heading limits of liability. Even in the Endorsement IMT-13, the columns have been left blank. Thus, the Tribunal found that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the entire liability. 6. A Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Even in the Endorsement IMT-13, the columns have been left blank. Thus, the Tribunal found that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the entire liability. 6. A Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya and others, (2002)2 Supreme Court Cases 278 : (AIR 2002 SC 651), has considered the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Act and held that though the liability of the insurer is limited as indicated in Section 95 of the Act, but it is open to the insured to make the payment of the additional higher premium and get higher risk covered in respect of third party also. In the absence of any such clause in the Insurance Policy, the liability of the insurer cannot be unlimited in respect of third party and it is limited only to the statutory liability. 7. The said proposition is not disputed by any of the learned counsel for the parties. But what is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant is that by payment of premium of Rs.12 per passenger i.e. Rs.648/- in respect of 54 passengers, the Insurance Company has agreed to indemnify the insured to the statutory liability alone. It is contended that Rs.12 per passenger is the premium recognized for the limited statutory liability of the Insurance Company. Such premium is prescribed under the India Motor Tariff, framed by the Tariff Advisory Committee constituted in exercise of the provisions of Part-II (B) of the Insurance Act, 1938. Such terms of the policy were recognized by the Honble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai, (1995) 2 SCC 539 : (AIR 1995 SC 1113). It is argued that for unlimited liability in terms of Exhibit P.6, the insurer was to pay a premium of Rs.50/- per passenger, but since premium of Rs.12/- alone has been paid, it is a case of statutory liability restricted to Rs.15,000/- per passenger. In the aforesaid case, the Court held to the following effect :- "6. The insurance policy taken out by the owner of the said bus i.e. respondent No.4 herein, and which was in force at the relevant time, was a comprehensive policy. This policy has been produced before us. It shows that the insured estimated value of the vehicle is Rs.2,50,000/-. The insurance policy taken out by the owner of the said bus i.e. respondent No.4 herein, and which was in force at the relevant time, was a comprehensive policy. This policy has been produced before us. It shows that the insured estimated value of the vehicle is Rs.2,50,000/-. In the Schedule of Premium, there is an additional payment of Rs.600/- in respect of 50 passengers. The claim against this amount states : "for LL to passengers as per Ednt. No. I.M.T. 12". The appellant-company has contended that it has charged premium at the rate of Rs.12/- per passenger in respect of 50 passengers to cover its limited liability under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which was then in force. xx xx xx 8 It was contended before the High Court that a separate premium has been paid for the passengers. This shows that there was a special contract to cover unlimited liability in respect of passengers between the appellant-company and respondent No. 4. The Tribunal as well as the High Court seem to have proceeded on the basis that the appellant-company had charged an extra premium of 0.50 paise per passenger to cover the risk of unlimited liability towards passengers. This seems to be an error. The premium of Rs.600/- has been paid in respect of 50 passengers. The policy clearly shows this. It is not 0.50 paise per passenger. It is pointed out by the appellant-company with reference to its tariff in respect of "Legal Liability for accidents of Passengers" that if the limit of liability for any one passenger is fifteen thousand rupees, the rate of annual premium per passenger is Rs.12/-. If the limit is twenty thousand rupees, the rate of premium per passengers is Rs.23/- per annum and so on. In respect of unlimited liability, the premium payable per passenger is Rs. 50/-. 9. In the present case, the premium which has been paid is at the rate of Rs. 12/- per passenger and is clearly referable to the statutory liability of fifteen thousand rupees per passenger under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the present case, there is no special contract between the appellant-company and respondent No.4 to cover unlimited liability in respect of an accident to a passenger. In the absence of such an express agreement, the policy covers only the statutory liability. In the present case, there is no special contract between the appellant-company and respondent No.4 to cover unlimited liability in respect of an accident to a passenger. In the absence of such an express agreement, the policy covers only the statutory liability. The mere fact that the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy will not help the respondent in any manner." 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has argued that Insurance Policy produced by the Insurance Company Exhibit R.5 is materially different from the policy produced by the insured Exhibit R.4. Exhibit R.5 is not a carbon copy of the policy produced from the records of the Insurance Policy, but is said to be attested from original. It is not accompanied by the complete terms of the policy, but has endorsements appended including IMT-13(A) in which blanks have been filled up. The said policy is subject to Endorsement Nos. 23, 21, 16, 26, 57 and 13, with the following schedule of premium :- 9. On the other hand, the policy produced by the owner is Exhibit R.4. It may be noticed that the schedule of premium as mentioned in Exhibit R.4 is filled up by hand without any indication that the premium charged is in respect of which entry of the printed proforma. Though the amount charged is same, but the schedule is in different format. The schedule of premium along with the limits of liability and other conditions, mentioned in the policy, Exhibit R.4, reads as under :- "Limits of Liability (a) Limits of the amount of the Companys liability under Section II-1 (i) in respect of any one accident: Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. (b) Limits of the amount of the Companys liability under Section II-1 (ii) in respect of any one claim of series of claim arising out of one event: Rs.50,000. Note : The words and figures in italics are in Hand in the policy Ex. R-4 "SECTION II -LIABILITY TOWARDS THIRD PARTIES 1. (b) Limits of the amount of the Companys liability under Section II-1 (ii) in respect of any one claim of series of claim arising out of one event: Rs.50,000. Note : The words and figures in italics are in Hand in the policy Ex. R-4 "SECTION II -LIABILITY TOWARDS THIRD PARTIES 1. Subject to the Limits of Liability the Company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (i) death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle (ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. PROVIDED ALWAYS that : (a) xx xx xx (b) Except so far as necessary to meet the requirements of Section 2A and Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in the course of such employment. (c) Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in relation to liability under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, the Company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment) being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the Motor Vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which any claim arises. (d) The Company shall not be liable in respect of damage to property belonging to or held in trust by or in the custody or control of the insured or a Member of the Insureds household or being covered by the Motor Vehicle." 10 The said policy is subject to Endorsement Nos. 21, 16, 23 and 17 only. Still further none of the blanks in endorsement IMT-13 of Policy Exhibit R.4 is filled up. The schedule does not reflect that which amount is towards which liability. IMT 13-A is on a separate sheet of paper with policy Exhibit R.5. Endorsement IMT-13 in Exhibits R.4 and R.5 reads as under :- (Exhibit R.4) (Exhibit R.5) IMT 13. Still further none of the blanks in endorsement IMT-13 of Policy Exhibit R.4 is filled up. The schedule does not reflect that which amount is towards which liability. IMT 13-A is on a separate sheet of paper with policy Exhibit R.5. Endorsement IMT-13 in Exhibits R.4 and R.5 reads as under :- (Exhibit R.4) (Exhibit R.5) IMT 13. Legal Liability to passengers excluding liability for accidents to employees of the Insured arising out of and in the course of their employment. Endorsement No. I.M.T. 13(A) attaching to and forming part of Policy No. 4417303679. Legal Liability to passengers excluding liability for accidents to employees of the Insured arising out of and in the course of their employment. In consideration of an additional premium as mentioned in the schedule and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section II-1 (c) but subject otherwise to the terms, exceptions, conditions and limitations of this policy the company will indemnify the insured against liability at law for compensation (including Law Costs of any claimant) for death of or bodily injury to any person other than a person excluded under Section II-1(b) being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the motor vehicle but such indemnity is limited to the sum of Rs. (sic) as mentioned in the schedule in respect of any one person and subject to the aforesaid limit in respect of any one person to Rs. (sic) as mentioned in schedule in respect of any number of claims in connection with the motor vehicle arising out of one cause. In consideration of an additional premium of Rs. 12/- per passengers and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section II-1(c) but subject otherwise to the terms, exceptions conditions and limitations of this policy the company will indemnify the insured against liability at law for compensation (including Law Costs of any claimant) for death of or bodily injury to any person other than a person excluded under Section II-1(b) being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the motor vehicle but such indemnity is limited to the sum of Rs. 15,000/- in respect of any one person and subject to the aforesaid limit in respect of any one person to Rs. 15,000/- in respect of any number of claims in connection with the motor vehicle arising out of one cause. 15,000/- in respect of any one person and subject to the aforesaid limit in respect of any one person to Rs. 15,000/- in respect of any number of claims in connection with the motor vehicle arising out of one cause. XX XX XX XX XX XX 11 The Policy, Exhibit R.4, has been produced in evidence by RW1-Shashi Kant Gupta, owner of the vehicle, who has inter-alia, deposed that he got the bus insured comprehensively with the Insurance Company with unlimited liability. The entire cross-examination conducted upon the said witness by the counsel for the Insurance Company reads as under : "It is incorrect to suggest that I have brought the incomplete policy. I do not know if the company had charged Rs. 12/- as premium per passenger. It is incorrect to suggest that insurance policy is regarding third party." 12. The Insurance Policy Exhibit R.5 has been tendered into evidence by the counsel for the Insurance Company on 12.11.1987 when he made the following statement : "I tender in evidence attested copy of Insurance Policy Ex. R.5, Legal liability for Accident to passengers Ex. R.6 and close my evidence on behalf of respondent No.2." 13. A Full Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Ludhiana v. Kamala Rani and others, 1997 (3) PLR 302, has held that the certified copy of the Insurance Policy produced by the Insurance Company, is admissible in evidence without any formal proof of it. It was held to the following effect : "33. Every policy issued is required to be registered in the records. Every insurance company shall maintain the record and under the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the Central Govt. has got the power to issue directions and the Central Government also have got the power to control over the business of the Corporation and other officers of the Companies are declared to be public servants within Section 2(21) of the Indian Penal Code. xx xx xx 35. Thus a reading of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the rules framed thereunder and the provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, provisions of General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 and the provisions of General Insurance (Emergency) Act, 1971 makes it abundantly clear that every motor vehicle owner has to take out an insurance policy before using the motor vehicle in a public place. Thus issuance of an insurance policy covering the risk for using the motor vehicle in a public place is a statutory duty cast on the insurance companies. As already observed, the business of general insurance including motor vehicle insurance was nationalized in the year 1972 and the Government has taken over the business of general insurance including the motor vehicle insurance. Therefore, the insurance companies which are owned by the Government are discharging a statutory and public duty as envisaged under the various enactments referred to above. Thus issuance of a policy issued by a company wholly owned by the Government is, therefore, an act of official body and of public officers as the policies are issued under the statutory provisions contained in the enactments referred to above. xx xx xx 37.....It can safely be held that policies of insurance or certificate of insurance and cover notes issued by the companies in performance of their statutory duties can be classified as public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. When certificate of insurance/policy issued by the insurance company is a public document, the same can be proved by production of a certified copy under Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that a certified copy of insurance policy produced by the insurance Company which issued it is admissible in evidence without any formal proof of it. If the insured i.e. the owner of the vehicle disputes the correctness of the said certified copy, it is for him to produce the original which will be in his custody only. We are, therefore, of the opinion that certified copy of insurance policy is admissible in evidence under Section 74 read with Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act without any formal proof." 14. We may add that Section 2(5) of the Insurance Act, 1938 defines the word "certified, whereas Section 2(9) defines "insurer. The said provisions read as under : "2. We may add that Section 2(5) of the Insurance Act, 1938 defines the word "certified, whereas Section 2(9) defines "insurer. The said provisions read as under : "2. Definition - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, - XX XX XX (5) "certified" in relation to any copy or translation of a document required to be furnished by or on behalf of an insurer or a provident society as defined in Part III means certified by a principal officer or such insurer or provident society to be a true copy or a correct translation, as the case may be; xx xx xx (9) "insurer" means - (a) any individual or unincorporated body of individuals or body corporate incorporated under the law of any country other than India carrying on insurance business (not being a person specified in sub-clause (c) of this clause) which - (i) carries on that business in India, or (ii) has his or its principal place of business or is domiciled in India, or (iii) with the object of obtaining insurance business, employs a representative, or maintains a place of business, in India;" 15. The Insurance Company has issued the Insurance Policy in terms of the Insurance Act, 1938. Therefore, if a policy is certified by a principal officer to be true copy, the same would be admissible in evidence. Exhibit R.4 is the carbon copy of the Insurance Policy. The authenticity of the said policy has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company in the cross-examination conducted on 14.10.1987 except to say that it incomplete. It is not suggested that it is not carbon copy of the original. Therefore, the said policy is deemed to be proved on record. Policy Exhibit R. 5 contains a schedule of premium typed with endorsement "attested from original" without any signatures. It is signed by the duly constituted attorney at the place meant for signatures at the time of issuance of the policy. Even if it is taken to be an irregular form of attestation, still the policy being at variance with the carbon copy of the policy produced by the insured, we find that no reliance can be placed upon such policy produced by the Insurance Company. We also find that the policy, Exhibit R.5, does not contain terms and conditions as are appended with the policy, Exhibit R.4. We also find that the policy, Exhibit R.5, does not contain terms and conditions as are appended with the policy, Exhibit R.4. Policy produced as Exhibit R.5, is subject to endorsement IMT-13, whereas policy Exhibit R.4 is not subject to such condition. Therefore, the policy, Exhibit R.4, produced in evidence by the insured is the relevant policy governing the terms of the insurance between the parties. 16. Exhibit R.6 are the printed pages 25 and 26 with the heading additional premium in respect of third party indemnity limits. The said extracts are said to be part of the India Motor Tariff, framed by the Tariff Advisory Committee constituted under Section 64-U of the Insurance Act, 1938. Such Tariff Advisory Committee is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. The decisions of the Advisory Committee are final in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 64-UC of the Act. Neither the statement of the counsel, who tendered Exhibit R.6, nor the document Exhibit R.6, shows that it is part of India Motor Tariff, the certified copy of which can be said to be admissible per se. As per such document, Rs. 12/- is the premium for limited liability of Rs. 15,000/- for one passenger, Rs. 23/- for the liability of Rs. 23,000/- and Rs. 30/- for the liability of Rs. 30,000/- per passenger whereas on payment of Rs. 50/- the liability is unlimited. 17. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since Rs. 12/- per passenger has been collected as the premium, therefore, from the schedule of premium of policy Exhibit R.4 or Exhibit R.5 read with the extracts from the India Motor Tariff Exhibit R.6, the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 15,000/-, it being the statutory liability under Section 95(2) of the Act. 18. The relevant Section 95(2) as applicable on the date of accident reads as under : "95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. 15,000/-, it being the statutory liability under Section 95(2) of the Act. 18. The relevant Section 95(2) as applicable on the date of accident reads as under : "95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. (1) xx xx xx (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) Where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of one lakh and fifty thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle; (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; (ii) In respect of passengers, a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger; (c) save as provided in clause (d), where the vehicle is a vehicle of any other class, the amount of liability incurred; (d) irrespective of the class of vehicle, a limit of rupees six thousand in all in respect of damage to any property of a third party." 19. In view of the respective contentions, we are called upon to answer the following four questions : i) Whether a comprehensive commercial motor vehicle policy indemnifies the insured in respect of statutory liability fixed under Section 95(2) of the Act or the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the unlimited liability? ii) Whether the onus to prove that the Insurance Company has a limited liability is on the Insurance Company? iii) Whether in the facts of the present case, the Insurance Company has proved that its liability is limited as provided under the Statute? iv) Whether the Insurance Company can be made liable to pay the awarded amount with liberty to recover the amount in excess of the statutory liability from the insured, in the event question No. iii) is answered in favour of the Insurance Company? Question No. 1. 20. iv) Whether the Insurance Company can be made liable to pay the awarded amount with liberty to recover the amount in excess of the statutory liability from the insured, in the event question No. iii) is answered in favour of the Insurance Company? Question No. 1. 20. The Reference was made to the Larger Bench primarily for the reason that the comprehensive policy makes the Insurance Company liable for the unlimited liability as it is liable to satisfy the entire awarded amount. However, the question whether the comprehensive policy leads to unlimited liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy an award, stands decided by the Constitution Bench in C.M. Jayas case (AIR 2002 SC 651) (supra), wherein it has been held to the following effect : "8. Thus, a careful reading of these decisions clearly shows that the liability of the insurer is limited, as indicated in Section 95 of the Act, but it is open to the insured to make payment of additional higher premium and get higher risk covered in respect of third party also. But in the absence of any such clause in the insurance policy the liability of the insurer cannot be unlimited in respect of third party and it is limited only to the statutory liability. This view has been consistently taken in the other decisions of this Court. 9. In Shanti Bai case (AIR 1995 SC 1113), a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, following the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, (1988) 1 SCC 626 : (AIR 1988 SC 719), has held that : (i) a comprehensive policy which has been issued on the basis of the estimated value of the vehicle does not automatically result in covering the liability with regard to third-party risk for an amount higher than the statutory limit, (ii) that even though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at least under an "Act only" policy, it is not obligatory for the owner of a vehicle to get it comprehensively insured, and (iii) that the limit of liability with regard to third party risk does not become unlimited or higher than the statutory liability in the absence of specific agreement to make the insurers liability unlimited or higher than the statutory liability. 10. 10. On a careful reading and analysis of the decision in Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar, (1998) 3 SCC 744 : (AIR 1998 SC 1433), it is clear that the view taken by the Court is no different. In this decision also, the case of Jugal Kishore is referred to. It is held : (i) that the liability of the insurer depends on the terms of the contract between the insured and the insurer contained in the policy; (ii) there is no prohibition for an insured from entering into a contract of insurance covering a risk wider than the minimum requirement of the statute whereby risk to the gratuitous passenger could also be covered; and (iii) in such cases where the policy is not merely statutory policy, the terms of the policy have to be considered the liability of the insurer." 21. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we are of the opinion that mere fact that the insured has taken a comprehensive policy, does not lead to an inference that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured of the entire awarded amount including the amount in excess of the statutory liability. Question No. 2. 22. The Insurance Company has raised a specific plea in the written statement that its liability is limited to Rs. 15,000/- per passenger. The burden to prove a fact lies on the person who alleges such fact. It has failed to prove the Insurance Policy leading to support such plea. The Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : (AIR 2004 SC 1531), has held that the Insurance Company with a view to avoid its liability is not only required to show that the conditions laid down under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (corresponding to Section 95 of Act), are satisfied, but it is further required to establish that there has been breach on the part of the insured. It was held to the following effect : "49. Such a breach on the part of the insured must be established by the insurer to show that not only the insured used or caused or permitted to be used the vehicle in breach of the Act but also that the damage he suffered flowed from the breach. xx xx xx 66. Such a breach on the part of the insured must be established by the insurer to show that not only the insured used or caused or permitted to be used the vehicle in breach of the Act but also that the damage he suffered flowed from the breach. xx xx xx 66. A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 149 of the Act leads to only one conclusion that the usual rule is that once the assured proves that the accident is covered by the compulsory insurance clause, it is for the insurer to prove that it comes within an exception. 67. In MacGillivray on Insurance Law it is stated: "25-82. Burden of Proof. - Difficulties may arise in connection with the burden of proving that the facts of any particular case fall within this exception. The usual rule is that once the assured has proved that the case comes within the general risk, it is for the insurers to prove that it comes within an exception. It has, therefore, been suggested in some American decisions that, where the insurers prove only that the assured exposed himself to danger and there is no evidence to show why he did so, they cannot succeed, because they have not proved that his behaviour was voluntary or that the danger was unnecessary. Since an extremely heavy burden is imposed on the insurers if they have to prove the state of mind of the assured, it has been suggested in Canadian decisions that the court should presume that the assured acted voluntarily and that, where he does an apparently dangerous and foolish act, such danger was unnecessary, until the contrary is shown. In practical terms, therefore, the onus does in fact lie on the claimant to explain the conduct of the assured where there is no apparent reason for exposing himself to an obvious danger." xx xx xx 69. The proposition of law is no longer res integra that the person who alleges breach must prove the same. The insurance company is, thus, required to establish the said breach by cogent evidence. In the event the insurance company fails to prove that there has been breach of conditions of policy on the part of the insured, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability." 23. In Oriental Insurance Co. The insurance company is, thus, required to establish the said breach by cogent evidence. In the event the insurance company fails to prove that there has been breach of conditions of policy on the part of the insured, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability." 23. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal, (2007) 5 SCC 428 : (AIR 2007 SC 1609), it was held to the following effect : "16. The breach of a policy condition has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence of or production of fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third party. The insurance company to avoid liability, must not only establish the available defence raised in the proceeding concerned but must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle for which the burden of proof would rest with the insurance company. Whether such a burden had been discharged, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Even when the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning a policy condition, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach of condition is so fundamental as to be found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The question whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out whether the driving licence produced by the driver was fake or not, will have to be determined in each case. If the vehicle at the time of the accident was driven by a person having a learners licence, the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the award. The amount that may be awarded to the insurance company against the insurer in an appropriate case could be recovered even by way of the enforcement of the very award. The insurance company had to satisfy the claim of the insured in cases where a defence under Section 149(2) had been established by the company in terms of a fake licence or the learners licence. The insurance company had to satisfy the claim of the insured in cases where a defence under Section 149(2) had been established by the company in terms of a fake licence or the learners licence. Their Lordships distinguished Malla Prakasarao v. Malla Janaki wherein it was held that the insurance company had no liability to pay any compensation where an accident resulted by a vehicle being driven by a driver without a driving licence. In other words, a distinction between a case of no licence and a case of licence which turned out to be fake or deficient was drawn and the liability was held to stand on different footings." 24. In view of the above, we hold that the burden to prove that the insurance company has limited liability is on the Insurance Company because it has so pleaded in its written statement. In a given case, the burden of proof can be on the owner, if it is asserted that the liability of the insurance company is unlimited. This aspect would depend upon pleading of the parties. In the facts of the present case, we find that the burden of proof of the assertion of its limited liability is on the Insurance Company. Question No. 3. 25. Section 94 of the Act prohibits the use of a motor vehicle in a public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of vehicle a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter-VIII. Section 93(d) of Act defines third party which includes Government. Section 95 of the Act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of Chapter-VIII, a policy of Insurance must be a policy issued by a person, who is authorized insurer and shall cover any liability in respect of any one accident up to the limits mentioned therein in terms of sub-clause (II) of Section 95 of the Act. One of the questions, which is required to be examined is whether the passengers in a motor vehicle authorized to carry passengers are third party. 26. One of the questions, which is required to be examined is whether the passengers in a motor vehicle authorized to carry passengers are third party. 26. A single Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in judgment reported as National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Faqir Chand and others, AIR 1995 Jammu and Kashmir 91, while considering a case of a passenger in a motor vehicular accident, has held that any party which is not a contracting party to the policy of insurance, will automatically be referred and called as third party. It was held to the following effect : "As will be evident once again the expression "third party" has not been defined in Section 147. What is the true meaning of the expression "third party"? A contract of insurance has two parties to it, the insurer and the insured. These are the contracting parties of the contract of insurance and they, therefore, can be called as the first party and the second party. Any party, therefore, who is not a contracting party to the policy of insurance will automatically be referred to and called as a third party because he is neither the first party (the insurer) nor the second party (the insured) (or vice versa, if one pleases). The use of the words "third party" therefore, in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, clearly refers to the intention or the Legislature to point out to a party who is neither the first party nor the second party to a contract of insurance. 3. Other than the contracting parties to the insurance policy, the expression "third party" therefore, should include everyone, be it a person travelling in another vehicle, one walking on the road or a passenger in the vehicle itself which is the subject matter of the insurance policy. Every insured takes out an insurance policy against a third party risk, and enters into a contract with insurer, only with the motive, intention and purpose of covering the risks which may arise in relation to claims lodged against him by a third party." 27. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (AIR 2007 SC 1563), a question arose whether the principle laid down in Swaran Singhs case (AIR 2004 SC 1531) (supra), that the liability to indemnify the insured extends to the own damage of the insured as well. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (AIR 2007 SC 1563), a question arose whether the principle laid down in Swaran Singhs case (AIR 2004 SC 1531) (supra), that the liability to indemnify the insured extends to the own damage of the insured as well. While considering the aforesaid question, the Court held that before the Accident Claims Tribunal, there are essentially three parties i.e. insurer, the insured and the claimants, whereas in the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there are two parties i.e. the owner of the vehicle and the insurer. Thus, it was held that the decision rendered in Swaran Singhs case (supra), does not cover the payment of compensation to the insurer for its own damage, but the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the claim of all the third parties in view of the statutory object of protecting the interest of third party by use of a motor vehicle in a public place. 28. In A.P. SRTC v. K. Hemlatha, (2008) 6 SCC 767 : (AIR 2008 SC 2851), the Court held that in an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, the compensation is payable in respect of the composite negligence of the drivers of those vehicles. 29. The word "third party" is not defined in exhaustive manner either in the Act or in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . It is defined so as to include the Government. In view of the judgments referred to above, though the expression of third party will include in its ambit, the passengers travelling in the motor vehicle as also the pedestrian on the road or a person travelling in another vehicle, but a special provision has been enacted in respect of the passengers in a motor vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company would be liable to indemnify the insured to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger on proof of insurance policy in this respect. But in the present case, the Insurance Company has failed to prove the Insurance Policy, restricting its liability, therefore, the question requires to be examined whether in terms of the Policy, Exhibit R.4, the liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited. 30. 15,000/- per passenger on proof of insurance policy in this respect. But in the present case, the Insurance Company has failed to prove the Insurance Policy, restricting its liability, therefore, the question requires to be examined whether in terms of the Policy, Exhibit R.4, the liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited. 30. The Schedule of premium, as printed in Exhibit R.4 in respect of the limits of liability per passenger, has been left blank. Though, the premium charged is mentioned, but the column limited liability is not filled up. Endorsement IMT-13, the terms and conditions printed, is also blank. Therefore, even though the insured has paid premium of Rs. 12/- per passenger, but the terms of the Policy, as produced by the owner, do not lead to the conclusion that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited under the Act. Question No. 4. 31. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon an order of Honble Judges of the Supreme Court dated 31.8.2009 reported as (2009) 8 SCC 785, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni and Anr., referring the matter to the Larger Bench, doubting the correctness of certain judgments, wherein the Insurance Company has been directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants but with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 32. A three-Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Swaran Singhs case (AIR 2004 SC 1531) (supra), the Insurance Company has been made liable to pay the awarded amount even in the cases where the offending vehicle was being driven by a person, who was not duly licenced or there were other breaches of the terms of the policy with a view to protect the rights of the third party. The summary of the findings recorded in Swaran Singhs case (supra), reads as under : "(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third-party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , inter alia, in terms of Section 149 (2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time." 33. In Meena Variyals case (AIR 2007 SC 1609) (supra), the Court has held that the Insurance Company to avoid liability must not only establish the available defence raised in the proceeding concerned, but must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle for which the burden of proof would rest within the Insurance Company. It was held that it is difficult to apply the ratio of this decision to a case not involving a third party. It was held to the following effect : "The breach of a policy condition has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence of or production of fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third party. The insurance company to avoid liability, must not only establish the available defence raised in the proceeding concerned but must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle for which the burden of proof would rest with the insurance company. The insurance company to avoid liability, must not only establish the available defence raised in the proceeding concerned but must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle for which the burden of proof would rest with the insurance company. Whether such a burden had been discharged, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Even when the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning a policy condition, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach of condition is so fundamental as to be found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The question whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out whether the driving licence produced by the driver was fake or not, will have to be determined in each case. If the vehicle at the time of the accident was driven by a person having a learners licence, the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the award. The amount that may be awarded to the insurance company against the insurer in an appropriate case could be recovered even by way of the enforcement of the very award. The insurance company had to satisfy the claim of the insured in cases where a defence under Section 149(2) had been established by the company in terms of a fake licence or the learners licence. Their Lordships distinguished Malla Prakasarao v. Malla Janaki2 wherein it was held that the insurance company had no liability to pay any compensation where an accident resulted by a vehicle being driven by a driver without a driving licence. In other words, a distinction between a case of no licence and a case of licence which turned out to be fake or deficient was drawn and the liability was held to stand on different footings. 17. It is difficult to apply the ratio of this decision to a case not involving a third party. The whole protection provided by Chapter XI of the Act is against third-party risk. Therefore, in a case where a person is not a third party within the meaning of the Act, the insurance company cannot be made automatically liable merely by resorting to Swaran Singh ratio. This appears to be the position. This position was expounded recently by this Court in National Insurance Co. Therefore, in a case where a person is not a third party within the meaning of the Act, the insurance company cannot be made automatically liable merely by resorting to Swaran Singh ratio. This appears to be the position. This position was expounded recently by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut. (AIR 2007 SC 1563)". 34. As per Section 94 of the Act, a motor vehicle cannot be used in a public place unless there is in force in relation to use of said vehicle an Insurance Policy complying with the requirements of Chapter-VIII. Since, the stage carriage was being used by the insured in a public place, it is required to have a policy of insurance. The said requirement has a public purpose to achieve i.e. the persons who suffer damage on account of use of such vehicle, should be able to obtain monetary compensation from the Insurance Company. There is no statutory requirement of an owner to obtain a policy to meet out his own damage in terms of Chapter VIII of the Act. Therefore, the statutory liability in respect of a passenger of a motor vehicle when it is permitted to carry such passenger is required to be statutorily met in terms of Clause (b) of Section 95(2) of the Act. 35. Since there is a dispute about the extent of liability, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to make the payment of the said compensation to the claimants. However, it shall have liberty to claim the amount over and above the statutory liability by establishing its claim in appropriate subsequent proceedings. For the said proposition, reference may be made to New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kiran Singh and others, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3884, wherein a finding was returned that the Insurance Policy produced by the Insurance Company was not genuine. The Courts have relied upon the policy produced before the Tribunal by the Bank Manager, to whom the policy was handed over by the owner. In the aforesaid case, Rs. 1290/- was paid as premium for covering the risk of 40 passengers and that there was no endorsement IMT-13. It was held to the following effect : 6. Insurance is a covenant of good faith, where both parties are covenanted to abide by the terms and conditions of the policy. In the aforesaid case, Rs. 1290/- was paid as premium for covering the risk of 40 passengers and that there was no endorsement IMT-13. It was held to the following effect : 6. Insurance is a covenant of good faith, where both parties are covenanted to abide by the terms and conditions of the policy. In the premises aforesaid, it is clear that the company has made a deliberate attempt to escape the liability by introducing a copy of the policy other than the insured. Often, the terms and conditions are being respected more in breach than observance. Insurance company must bear in mind that they are the trustee of the public. Keeper of the public coffer. Often, even genuine claims are being hotly contested in a routine manner by dragging the parties to Courts, wasting enormous time and money for the claimants to get their claims settled. The Act like Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial legislation aimed at quick redressal of the victims of accident arising out of the use of motor vehicles, the attitude routinely adopted by the Insurance Company would render the object of the Act frustrated. If such instances are brought to the Court, the Court would be obliged to dismiss the appeal with heavy costs, apart from deprecating such practices." 36. Since the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Parvathnenis case (supra), is an interim order, referring the question for decision to the Larger Bench, therefore, such interim order does not amount to unsettling of the law as stated in the judgments referred to above. Thus, we hold that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire awarded amount to the claimants, but it shall have a liberty to claim amount over and above the statutory liability from the insured in independent proceedings on establishment of its claim to such amount, in accordance with law. 37. With the said observations and findings, the present appeal along with other appeals arising out of the same impugned Award of the Tribunal shall stand dismissed. All other appeals shall be posted for hearing before an appropriate Bench to be decided in view of the declaration of law aforesaid.