JUDGMENT Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J. - This is an intra-Court appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order dated 04.07.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in M.A. No. 342 of 1990 confirming the order dated 30.03.1990 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Northern Division, Sambalpur fixing the liability of 50% of the awarded amount on the insurer, and not accepting the insurance policy for consideration as additional evidence. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the respondents no. 1 to 4, as claimants, filed Misc. (A) Case No. 80/89(S) before the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Northern Division, Sambalpur claiming Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of one Durga Prasad Agarwala. On 14.12.1980, the deceased, while travelling by a Car bearing registration no.WMD-9261 belonging to Ambika Vegetables and Chemical Industries-respondent no.5, a Truck bearing registration no.OSS-1273 belonging to respondent no.6 came and dashed against the Car. As a result, the deceased Durga Prasad Agarwala died on the spot. By that time, the deceased was 30 years of age and getting Rs.3,000/- per month. On being noticed, the owner of the Car, Respondent no.5 did not contest the case and set exparte. Respondent no.6 though filed written statement denying his liability, subsequently did not contest the case and set ex-parte. But the appellant, who was the insurer of both the vehicles, filed written statement admitting the accident, but denied the liability to pay compensation. The Tribunal, after assessing the materials on record, awarded Rs. 2,76,000/- as compensation and apportioned it between the two vehicles and directed the appellant to pay Rs.1,38,000/- in respect of the Car and Rs.1,38,000/- in respect of the Truck. The appellant, which is the insurer of both the vehicles, paid Rs.1,38,000/- along with interest in respect of the Car, as liability in respect of a third party is unlimited, and preferred appeal against the award saddled against the truck, as the statutory liability in respect of third party is Rs.50,000/-. 3. In the appeal, the appellant admitted its liability to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and challenged the rest amount, i.e. Rs.88,000/-, as the same is beyond the statutory liability of the appellant and also filed the copy of the schedule of policy as additional evidence by filing a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. In the appeal, the appellant admitted its liability to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and challenged the rest amount, i.e. Rs.88,000/-, as the same is beyond the statutory liability of the appellant and also filed the copy of the schedule of policy as additional evidence by filing a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. But the learned Single Judge, by order dated 04.07.1995, partly allowed the appeal by modifying the rate of interest from 12 % to 9% per annum and upheld the award, i.e., Rs. 88,000/- above and excess of statutory liability of Rs.50,000/-. Hence this appeal. 4. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant argued with vehemence that the learned Single Judge is not justified in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for adducing additional evidence by producing the insurance policy itself. It is further contented that as per Rule 11 of the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Rules, 1946, the records were to be maintained by the insurer for a period of five years, but notice regarding the claim was given after 9 years, that is to say, after expiry of 5 years period of maintenance of records. Therefore, the appellant, after verifying the premium register, though admitted the insurance policy, but could not produce the same as it was destroyed. As such, the learned Single Judge has committed an error by directing to pay the balance amount of Rs.88,000/- excluding the admitted liability of Rs.50,000/- from out of total amount of Rs.1,38,000/-. 5. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, though respondent nos.1 to 4 have entered appearance, but none is present at the time of call. The owners of the vehicles respondent no.5 and respondent no.6 have also not contested the matter, even though notice was made sufficient against them, by appearing in the case itself, and as such both have set ex parte in the court below also. As it is a case of the year 1995 and in the meantime more than 22 years have passed, this Court is not inclined to issue fresh notice to the respondents and proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the materials available on record itself. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the factual matrix delineated above. As it is a case of the year 1995 and in the meantime more than 22 years have passed, this Court is not inclined to issue fresh notice to the respondents and proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the materials available on record itself. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the factual matrix delineated above. But only dispute which has been raised before this Court is with regard to liability of the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.88,000/- excluding the admitted liability of Rs.50,000/- from out of the total amount of Rs.1,38,000/-. Admittedly, the insurance policy could not be produced before the Tribunal at the time of hearing. Therefore, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for adducing such insurance policy as additional evidence and the contention raised was that as per Rule 11, after lapse of five years the policy in question is required to be destroyed. Admittedly, the claim petition has been filed after long lapse of 9 years of the incident. Therefore, there is no valid and justifiable reason to keep the policy intact after expiry of the statutory period. But this Court is not going into that aspect at this point of time. Rather, this being a year old case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as it is a well discussed order. But fact remains, if the insurance company’s liability is restricted to Rs.50,000/- at the relevant point of time, any excess amount, if paid by the insurance company, should be recovered from the owner in accordance with law. Needless to say that if the amount is still lying, the same should be disbursed to the claimant-respondents no.1 to 4 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order with liberty to the insurance company to realize the same from the owner in accordance with law. 7. With the above observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.