JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Talapatra 1. Pursuant to the order dated 02.04.2012 passed in MAC App. No. 50 of 2000, both these appeals are tied up for disposal by a common judgment, inasmuch as those are from the same judgment and award. Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (Appellant in MAC App. No. 108/2003). Also heard Mr. S. Datta, Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant (Appellant in MAC App. No. 50/2000). Though in previous occasions, Mr. P. Datta, Learned Counsel represented the owner (Respondent in both the appeals), today he is not present before the court. 2. A petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the claimant in T.S.(MAC) No. 376/1996 laying necessary details of the accident and of the damage that the claimant suffered in the accident as let loose by the vehicle No. TRS877 (Bus). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was made party from the very beginning while the claim petition was filed and on receipt of the notice from the Claims Tribunal, the Insurance Company appeared before the court but did not deny categorically that the offending vehicle was not insured with them. In an evasive manner, in para-15, the appellant-Insurance Company stated "the liability of the answering O.P., if any, is very much limited within the scope, ambit and terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. It is further stated that the question of liability be determined only in terms of the policy terms and conditions and unless there is proper compliance of the provisions of the policy and for want of non-observance of the terms and conditions therein, the insurer should not be made liable to indemnify the insured, and in such case if question of compensation does arise it is the owner/insured to shoulder the same". In para-18 also in the similar tone and tenor, it has been stated unless the insured produce all relevant papers concerning the vehicle and accident i.e. driving licence, fitness certificate, registration certificate, route permit, tax proof, vehicle Inspector's report, in order to fix up liability, otherwise, the O.P. Insurance Company simply cannot be held responsible to satisfy the claim. As such, there is no straight denial that there is insurance coverage of the vehicle by the Oriental Insurance Company. As such, there is no straight denial that there is insurance coverage of the vehicle by the Oriental Insurance Company. Even in the memorandum of appeal there is no ground that there was no insurance coverage of the offending vehicle and as such it has to be stated that the insurance company did not file any appeal on that ground. However, it is found that the learned Tribunal below has observed that the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay the compensation. The relevant part of the observation is extracted for appreciation : On perusal of the same in para 10 of the written objection of the Oriental Insurance Company I find that they have stated that they did not yet trace out and ascertain the Insurance Policy of the offending vehicle. In para 12 of the written objection they have again stated that they are disputing the validity of the Insurance Policy of the vehicle during the period of accident. From the written objection of the Oriental Insurance Company I find that they did not deny the coverage of insurance of the offending vehicle TRS 877 by the Insurance Company. They were only disputed the validity of the Insurance policy during the period of accident. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that, since the owner did not submit the copy of the insurance policy, they are not bound to pay any amount of compensation in this case. His submissions are based on grounds of the appeal which may be excerpted for consideration : 5. That learned Member committed grave error of law in awarding compensation against the appellant company in the absence of policy particulars in as much as law is settled that merely giving the name of Insurance Company is not sufficient to prove the policy in existence without giving particulars. 6. That learned Member committed grave error of law in awarding compensation against the appellant company in the absence of policy particulars in as much as law is settled that merely giving the name of Insurance Company is not sufficient to prove the policy in existence without giving particulars. 6. That learned member failed to appreciate the fact that the claimant as well as the owner failed to furnish the policy particulars and under such eventuality it is well-neigh impossible for the petitioner company to exhibit the policy in question, and, as such, observation made by the learned Member that the company did not produce the policy is not tenable in law in as much as it is the duty of the owner to produce the original Insurance policy with all endorsement to shift its liability but in the instant case it was not done and as such the impugned award is liable to be set aside and quashed. 7. That your petitioner begs to state that the petitioner company took the specific plea in the written statement as well as in the additional written statement that the vehicle was not insured with the appellant company at the relevant time. The appellant company further submitted in its additional written statement that under such eventuality owner of the vehicle should be directed to produce insurance policy if any in order to ascertain the coverage and in spite of all learned Member did not feel at all to direct the owner to produce relevant records and the documents in arriving at a correct decision in as much as it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to direct the owner of the vehicle to produce the copy of the policy if any when the appellant company specifically denied the existence of the policy with it and as such the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 8. That learned Member miserably failed to appreciate that both the claimant as well as the owner failed to give details of Insurance so as to enable the Insurance company to trace out the policy from their records whether the vehicle was insured with the said company. The learned Member landed in error in not calling the owner of the vehicle to produce the policy of Insurance or any other document showing that the vehicle was insured on the date of this incident with this insurance company. 9. The learned Member landed in error in not calling the owner of the vehicle to produce the policy of Insurance or any other document showing that the vehicle was insured on the date of this incident with this insurance company. 9. That the petitioner begs to state that learned Member illegally passed the award against the insurance company, in as much as no material and/or document was produced before the Tribunal showing that the vehicle was insured with the petitioner Insurance Company. 10. That your petitioner begs to submit that learned Member ought to have realised that unless material is supplied to the Insurance Company it will be difficult to trace out the policy as the Insurance companies have got several branches throughout the country and unless it is known as to which branch the vehicle was insured and for what period and in whose name it is insured and non consideration of such an important aspect has vitiated the entire award. The learned member ought to have passed the impugned award against the owner of the vehicle. 11. That the petitioner begs to state that instead of finding fault with the Insurance Company, if the Tribunal had called upon the opponent-owner to produce the certificate of insurance or any other document showing that the vehicle was insured with this insurance company on the date of the accident then the owner would have certainly produced the same unfortunately the learned Tribunal without following the proper procedure mechanically passed the award against the Insurance Company which is liable to be set aside. 4. The court has perused the written objection as filed by the Oriental Insurance Company. In para-10 of the written objection, the Insurance Company stated that they did not trace out any insurance policy of the offending vehicle. In para-12 of the written objection, they have again stated that they are disputing the validity of the policy of insurance of the vehicle during the time of the alleged accident. 5. As stated earlier, in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC App. No. 108/2003, as converted from W.P.(C) No. 315/2000, no ground except that the owner did not file the policy particulars and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal is available. 6. 5. As stated earlier, in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC App. No. 108/2003, as converted from W.P.(C) No. 315/2000, no ground except that the owner did not file the policy particulars and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal is available. 6. As already indicated above, in the written statement as filed by the Insurance Company, there is no categorical statement that the offending vehicle is not covered by their policy. Apart that, other ground that has been taken that since the claimant suffered 34% disablement, the compensation that has been awarded is exorbitantly high. 7. Since two appeals are being heard together, let us examine the question of the quantum as raised by the claimant in MAC App. No. 50/2000. From the deposition of PW.1-claimant, no idea can be formed what he was doing before the accident. 8. Learned Tribunal below has given the following components for assessing the compensation: (i) Rs. 50,000/- for medical expenses, (ii) Rs. 10,000/- for pain and sufferings and (iii) Rs. 1,00,000/- for the claimant being 34% disabled on account of accident. As such, the total compensation was assessed at Rs. 1,60,000/-. 9. It appears from the evidence that the claimant was admitted as an indoor patient in the G.B.P. Hospital from 19.03.1991 to 13.08.1991, i.e. for about five months. The amount for medical expenses, as such would not be less than Rs. 65,000/-. As such, on that count, the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 65,000/as medical expenses. For pain and sufferings, the amount as granted is too meagre to sustain the same. It would be Rs. 50,000/-. Considering the nature of disablement and consequent loss of future amenities, the compensation on those counts is required to be assessed at Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs. 50,000/-). As such, the total compensation assessed at Rs. 2,65,000/- (rupees two lakhs sixty five thousand)only and the said amount would carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 06.09.1996 till the payment is made. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. shall make the payment of the said award within a period of 30(thirty) days from today, otherwise the said amount would carry interest @ 11% from the date of filing the petition i.e. 06.09.1996 till payment is made. 10. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. shall make the payment of the said award within a period of 30(thirty) days from today, otherwise the said amount would carry interest @ 11% from the date of filing the petition i.e. 06.09.1996 till payment is made. 10. Before parting with records, it is required to be noted that the Insurance Company (Appellant in MAC App. No. 108/2003) filed two policies against the offending vehicle for the periods (i) 30.11.1992 - 29.11.1993 and (ii) 29.11.1993 - 29.11.1994 (marked Ext.-Y and Ext.-Z respectively). 11. Under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, the Manager, UCO Bank, Bishalgarh Branch to which the offending vehicle was hypothecated, was examined by this Court and he had submitted the Ledger of the UCO Bank, Bishalgarh Branch showing that the Bank had debited a sum of Rs. 9,808/- as premium for the insurance policy on November,1990 (Ext.-X). As such, if the coverage is calculated in another one year, the policy covers the day of accident i.e. 19.03.1991. As such, what has been stated by the Insurance Company that for non-furnishing of insurance policy they are not liable, cannot be sustained. 12. It is to be reiterated here that the insurance company are the custodians of the insurance papers. However, without making any detailed analysis of this aspect of the matter, particularly when in the written objection there is no categorical statement and what has been revealed from the Ledger of the Bank that the premium had been paid to the Insurance Company-appellant, the Insurance Company-appellant cannot be absolved of liability of payment. In case of their categorical denial, onus would have been heavier on the owner. Moreover, the Insurance Company has vouched that the policies (Ext.-Y and Z) were the policies of the subsequent years and the UCO Bank, Bishalgarh Branch had debited the premium on November,1990 ('month' on which subsequent policies as admitted commenced) as the vehicle was hypothecated to the UCO Bank, Bishalgarh Branch. It is further stated that the vehicle was under such hypothecation of the UCO Bank, Bishalgarh Branch since 1989. In view of this, the appeal as filed by the Insurance Company being MAC App. No. 108/2003 stands dismissed and the appeal as filed by the claimant being MAC App. No. 50/2000 is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed