1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 234 OF 1990 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ............................ Appellant vs Sanjay Ganpat Probhale & Ors. .............................. .. Respondents .. Mrs. Anita A. Agarwal for Appellant Mr. Abhay Jadhav i/b Mr. Vinod Jadhav for Respondent Nos. 3, 6, 7B & 7C. .. CORAM: A.S.OKA, J DATE: 19th November, 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The appellant is the original third opponent in a claim Petition filed under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The first to sixth respondents are the claimants in the claim petition. The Claim is made on account of death of one Hanmant in an accident involving a motor vehicle which was owned by the second respondent and which was driven at the relevant time by the first respondent. The Appellant is the insurer of the vehicle. By the impugned judgment and award, the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directed 2 the appellant, first and second respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/- together with the interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum to the claimants. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in the written statement filed by the appellant, a specific contention was raised that the liability of the appellant under the policy of the insurance was limited to Rs.50,000/-. She submitted that infact in the petition for review filed by the Appellant, seeking review of the impugned award, a true copy of the policy was produced. Her submission is that in view of the limited liability of Rs.50,000/-, under the impugned award the liability of the Appellant ought to have been restricted to Rs.50,000/-. She, therefore, submitted that the impugned award needs modification that extent. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is that a copy of the policy on which reliance was placed by the appellant was not produced before the Tribunal. In fact, a copy of the policy was not placed on record of the claim petition. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, a copy of the policy was placed on record of the review petition. It is not in dispute that the review petition has been rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the grounds incorporated in this memorandum of appeal show that 3 there is a challenge to the order in review petition. However, an Appeal is not maintainable against the order passed in review petition by which the said Petition was rejected. 4 Therefore, the position which emerges is that a copy of the policy was not placed on the record of the Tribunal before the Tribunal passed the award. The plea of limited liability could have been proved only by production of a copy of the policy of insurance. Admittedly that was not done. 5 In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned award. There is no merit in the appeal. The Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Judge.