1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 695 OF 1999 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant (Org. Opposite Party No.5) Vs Smt. Hirabai Vasant Sawant & Ors. .. Respondents -- Ms Aarti Barve for the Appellant. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24TH AUGUST, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. The Appellant has taken an exception to the judgment and award made by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a Claim Petition filed by the 1st to 5th Respondents claiming compensation on account of death of one Vasant in a motor accident. The award was made by the Tribunal in the sum of Rs.2,78,400/- together with interest thereon. The Appellant being insurer of the offending vehicle was held liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally along with the original opponent Nos. 4 and 6. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that though the vehicle was insured with the Appellant, the liability of the 2 Appellant/insurance company was limited to Rs.1,50,000/- in case of third party liability. She invited attention of the Court to the evidence of one Hasmukhbin Premchand Parekh, an Officer of the Appellant. She pointed out that a certified copy of the policy of the insurance was produced by the Appellant and the said witness deposed that the premium of Rs.245/- plus Rs.16/- was paid for driver and cleaner. She pointed out that the witness deposed that if the insured wants to increase the liability of the insurance company for a claim of third party, the insured is required to pay additional premium and in the present case, additional premium was not paid. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant invited the attention of the Court to a finding recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect. She submitted that a hyper technical view has been taken by the Tribunal by observing that an office copy of the policy and proposal form have not been produced. Her submission is that the evidence of the said witness clearly establishes that the liability of the Appellant was limited to Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The deposition of the witness Hasmukhbin records that the certified copy of the insurance policy has been produced by the Appellant along with a list Exhibit-47. The said certified copy has not been exhibited. The witness was examined with a view to prove the said document. In the examination- in-chief, the witness has merely stated that the certified copy of the insurance policy produced along with the list Exhibit-47 bears his signature. However, he has not stated that the said copy is a true copy of 3 the original policy or a true copy of the office copy of the original policy. In the examination-in-chief, there is no attempt made to prove that the copy produced was a true copy of the original. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that after the original is issued to the insured, an office copy of the policy is maintained by the office of the Appellant. The witness expressed inability to produce the office copy of the original policy. The witness specifically admitted that while signing the xerox copy, he had no occasion to see the office copy. This statement clearly shows that when the witness signed the alleged xerox copy of the original policy as the true copy as he had not seen either the original or the office copy thereof. Therefore, the copy of the policy produced by the Appellant has not been exhibited. Thus, the copy of the policy produced by the Appellant was not proved to be a true copy of the original. Moreover, the learned Member of the Tribunal has observed that even a certified copy of the proposal form was not produced which could have thrown light on the question whether any additional premium was paid by the insured. The Appellant-insurance company did not dispute the existence of the insurance policy but came out with a case that its liability thereunder was limited to Rs.1,50,000/-. The burden was on the Appellant to prove the said fact either by producing and proving the office copy of the original policy or by producing the proposal form or any other document to show that the liability was limited. As the said evidence is not adduced, the plea of limited liability has been rightly rejected by the learned Member of the Tribunal. 4 4. Hence, it is not possible to find fault with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. If the sum of Rs.25,000/-, if any, deposited by the Appellant is pending in this Court, the same be refunded to the Appellant along with interest accrued thereon. (A.S.OKA, J)