JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, the insurer of the vehicle bearing No.TR-01-E-1648 (Truck). None appears for the respondent No.1 despite due notice from the court. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. TR-01-E-1648 (Truck). 2. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the MV Act arises from the judgment and award dated 16.08.2014 delivered in T.S.(MAC) 349 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. The appeal has been preferred by the claimant being aggrieved by the determination of the tribunal in respect of damage and the liability of payment. Mr. B. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the fact relating to the accident which has taken place for the reckless driving of the offending vehicle has not been challenged in this appeal inasmuch as it has been accepted by the tribunal that the vehicle bearing No. TR-01-E-1648 (Truck) coming from the opposite direction had dashed the vehicle of the appellants bearing No.WB-73-A-7385 being driven by their driver namely Mohan Singh having due license. The accident took place at a place called Bhaskarchera under Mungiakami police station on 21.05.2010 at about 0940 hours. The vehicle of the appellants did not have any contribution in the accident and as such the appellants set in a legal action for claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 for realizing the damages their vehicles suffered in that accident. 4. While deciding their claim after recording the evidence the tribunal has observed as follows: “10. Documents proved particularly Exhibit 3, the printed money receipt of M/S J.K. Motors proves that claimants spent ..83,655/- for the repair of the vehicle but in view of the limitation provided by Section 147(2)(1)(b) of the Act, no compensation more than..6,000/- can be granted to the claimants. So, it is futile to examine all the exhibited documents in detail because, in any case, claim more than the permissible limit will be established. 11. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the claimants are entitled to get ..6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand) only as compensation from the O.P. nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally with 9% interest thereon from the date of presentation of the petition i.e. 08.08.2012 till realization.” 5. Mr. 11. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the claimants are entitled to get ..6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand) only as compensation from the O.P. nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally with 9% interest thereon from the date of presentation of the petition i.e. 08.08.2012 till realization.” 5. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has submitted that no insurance policy was produced by the respondent No.1 or the respondent No.3 in the inquiry to show that the policy was the Act policy under Section 147(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such liability should be limited to Rs.6,000/-. The claimant-appellants have given the description with number of the policy. Despite that in their written statement, the respondents No.1 and 3 did not disclose the nature of the insurance policy whether that was an Act policy or a package policy. Thus, the finding as returned by the tribunal is absolutely without foundation. Unless it is determined that the policy is the Act policy, Section 147(2) of the MV Act can not have any application to limit the liability to Rs.6,000/- only. In this regard Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the apex court in National Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi vs. Jugal Kishore and Others reported in AIR 1988 SC 719 where the apex court has observed as under: “This Court has consistently emphasised 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. This duty is greater in the case of instrumentalities of the State such as the appellant who are under an obligation to act fairly. In many cases even the owner of the vehicle for reasons known to him does not choose to produce the policy or a copy thereof. We accordingly wish to emphasise that in all such cases where the Insurance Company concerned 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 the insurance policy along with its defence. Even in the instant case had it been done so at the appropriate stage necessity of approaching this Court in Civil Appeal would in all probability have been avoided. Even in the instant case had it been done so at the appropriate stage necessity of approaching this Court in Civil Appeal would in all probability have been avoided. Filing a copy of the policy, therefore, not only cuts short avoidable litigation but also helps the Court in doing justice between the parties. The obligation on the part of the State or its instrumentalities to act fairly can never be over-emphasised.” 6. From the other side, Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has submitted that it is the burden of the claimant-appellants to prove that the policy was a comprehensive package policy and the damage that is suffered by the claimant-appellants be realized in toto from the insurance company without any limit as prescribed under Section-147(2)(b) of the MV Act. For purpose of reference, Section-147(2)(b) of the MV Act is extracted as under: “in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier.” 7. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has emphasized on the said limit submitting that the policy is an Act policy and hence the limit of liability is only six thousand. The respondent No.3 cannot be even saddled with the liability of payment of Rs.6,000/- inasmuch as findings in respect of damage is not sustained by adequate evidence. 8. This court is constrained to observe that someone without challenging such finding cannot be allowed to raise such objection, despite the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 of the CPC, even if, such principle is applied in the appeal under Section 173(1) of the MV Act. Thus, in the circumstances, this court is persuaded to observe that since the respondent No.3 did not despite giving the adequate description of the policy produce the policy in the tribunal and in view of the decision in Jugal Kishore (supra) an adverse interference is liable to be drawn against them. It is to be deemed that the policy was not an Act policy limiting to liability to Rs.6,000/- for the insurer. It is to be deemed that the policy was not an Act policy limiting to liability to Rs.6,000/- for the insurer. Thus, the respondent No.3 shall pay the entire amount of Rs.83,655/- which the appellants have paid to the service centre [garage]. Since this court does not find anything on record to disbelieve the money receipt [Exbt.3] that has been produced in the tribunal, the said amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum with effect from 08.08.2012, the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization. The respondent No.3 shall deposit the entire money as awarded by the tribunal below by the judgment dated 16.08.2014 within a period of one month from today. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent No.3. In terms of the above, the judgment of the trial court stands interfered with and modified. In the result, this appeal stands allowed.