F.A.O. No. 578 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 578 of 1987 Date of Decision : 11.11.2008 The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Smt. Ragini and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Deepak Suri Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J. The only question that has been raised in the present appeal is that the liability of the insurance company, the appellant herein, is limited. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the policy limits the liability of the insurance company to the extent of Rs.1.5 lakhs and not more than this. Reference was made to Exhibit R1 to contend that no extra premium has been made. Reliance was placed on National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and others 2004 ACJ 648. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the contention raised herein is totally misplaced. There is no quarrel with the proposition that if the policy prescribes a limit then the liability cannot exceed the prescribed limits and the statutory liability has to be adhered to. But a perusal of the F.A.O. No. 578 of 1987 -2- evidence reveals that the policy has not been placed on record. Exhibit R1 is merely a cover-note which reflects the premiums which have been paid. It also shows that the premium for third party risk and liability has been accepted by the company separately. Under the limits of liability word 'NFC' appears but it is not elaborated as to for what term it stands for. In any eventuality, the policy is not on record from where it can be inferred as to what is the limit of the liability. The appellant also did not file the written statement. In this view of the matter, when the appellant has failed to establish the plea as raised by it by way of cogent evidence on record, the prayer cannot be accepted. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed. 11.11.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss