JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. This is an appeal which has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against an award dated 17.11.2008, whereby, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while deciding the claim had passed an order awarding a sum of Rs.70,000/- as damages along with 7% interest from the date of filing the claim petition. 2. The brief facts as recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and as it is being considered by this Court, are that on 14.02.2007, an accident took place at 5:00 PM near Chinuali Saurn Krishi Vigyan Kendra and as a result of the accident, the injuries were inflicted upon the claimant and his shop was also damaged. 3. The contention of the claimant is that near Chinuali Saurn Krishi Vigyan Kendra, he had a shop (Hotel) from where he operated a small business of Tea Stall. The claimant’s case was that a truck bearing no.UA-10-4642 was coming from the side of Peepal Mandi Chinuali Saurnm, which was rashly and negligently driven by the truck driver. The said truck driver lost its control over the truck and the truck after damaging the claimant’s Tea Stall had entered into the structure standing thereon. 4. Due to the aforesaid accident, the claimant’s case is that several persons who were sitting over in the shop they were also injured and one Narayan Singh Rana later succumbed to his injuries caused by the accident. This Appeal from Order is not concerned with the damages for injuries which have been caused to the injured persons. This appeal is confined by the appellant/claimant from the view point that since as a result of the accident, his Tea Stall was damaged because the truck entered into his Tea Stall due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver, due to which, the walls of the Tea Stall damaged and developed cracks and the furniture inside the Tea Stall was also broken for example- Freeze, T.V. and other appliances were also completely damaged and these were brought to such a mutilated condition that it could not be utilized in future. He claimed that he may be awarded a damage to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss, and because of undergoing treatment a sum of Rs.10,000/- which he has incurred expenses for treatment. 5. He claimed that he may be awarded a damage to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss, and because of undergoing treatment a sum of Rs.10,000/- which he has incurred expenses for treatment. 5. He further submits that on account of the aforesaid accident, he could not run his business for a month due to which he suffered a business loss too, hence computing the total loss suffered, has claimed for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as total damages. What is surprising is that when the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was taken up and issues were framed, the Insurance Company so far as the appellant in this appeal had placed on record the following documents:- **izfroknh la[;k&1 dh vksj ls Hkh lwph dkxt la[;k&15&x ds lkFk okgu iath;u izek.k i= dkxt la[;k&16&x] eky okgu ijfeV dkxt la[;k&17&x] chek ikWyhlh dojuksV dkxt la[;k&18&x@1&rk&18&x@4 rFkk pkyku ykbZlsal dkxt la[;k&19&x vfHkys[k nkf[ky fd, x,A** 6. In support of his contention, the appellant has placed on record only Paper No.18-Ga/1-Taa-18-Ga/4 and Paper No.19-Ga, which is a policy cover note and, as a matter of fact, as would be apparent from the record that entire policy was not placed on record to substantiate as to what was the inter se obligations which were arising out of the Insurance Policy which happens to be binding contract between insurer and insured. Ultimately, after hearing the rival contentions, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttarkashi vide an award dated 17.11.2008 has partly decreed the award for a sum of Rs.70,000/- and damages along with an interest @ 7% as against the appellant. 7. Heard Mr. R.S. Negi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. R.B. Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant. 8. The sole argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the determination of damages as made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is in contravention to the provisions contained under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 7. Heard Mr. R.S. Negi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. R.B. Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant. 8. The sole argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the determination of damages as made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is in contravention to the provisions contained under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He submits that the determination of quantum of compensation for damages suffered to the property of a third person is governed by the provisions contained in Sub Section (2) of Section 147 of the Act, which provides as hereunder:- “(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:- (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) 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.” 9. Sub Section (2) (b) of Section 147 lays down that for the purposes of assessment of liability for the loss which has been suffered by a third person due to an acted of the insured. It would always be dependent upon the contractual obligations entered into between the parties i.e. insured and insurer, as policy is required to cover any liability incurred to third party by way of damages caused by accident. Hence for the purposes of quantifying the damages suffered in the accident by the third party it was incumbent on the Insurance Company to have placed on record, the Insurance Policy to show as to what was the extent of the inter se liability and its binding effect of the quantum of damages or losses which the Insurance Company was likely to honour, in an event of accident, and what would be limit of liability which would be casted upon owner of the vehicle. In the instant case, on scrutiny of the paper book also, it seems that there is no insurance policy relating to the insured on record, which could determine the inter se contractual obligations between the parties. In the instant case, on scrutiny of the paper book also, it seems that there is no insurance policy relating to the insured on record, which could determine the inter se contractual obligations between the parties. Until and unless that has been determined based on terms of insurance policy the case of the appellant that the damages could not have been levied against the appellant being suffered, Sub Section (b) of Sub Section (2) of Section 147 cannot be accepted. 10. Reason being under Section 147(2), it is mandated that the policy is bound to have a clause to meet the liability for loss suffered by third party due to the accident caused by insured, it is based on this clause only the premium of the policy is determined. 11. Apart from it, what has been said above once the appellant contends that the liability to pay the damages to the third person was required to be levied upon owner of the vehicle as its the driver who was negligent in driving the vehicle, in that eventuality too, the appellant had to determine as to what was the condition and who was supposed to have undertaken the liability in terms of the agreement having failed to discharge his responsibility to establish inter se contractual relationship between the Insurance Company and the claimant. The appellant has utterly failed to discharge his legal obligation, casted upon him to prove his case. 12. This Court finds that the damages which has been imposed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the Insurance Company and the truck owner was well was within the provision of Section 147 because the appellant has failed to establish otherwise the case which has been pleaded before the Appellate Court. Even no effort has been made by the Insurance Company, at this stage too, to substantiate his case by placing policy on record by invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. 13. In view of the above observations, the present appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 14. However, there would be no order as to costs. The Lower Court Record be also sent back in the record room.