IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.314 of 2001. Date of decision: 18.11.2008. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Karam Chand & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr.Sanjeev Sood, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.Navlesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondents1(a) to: Mr.Sanjay Ranta,Advocate vice 2(e): Mr.Parmod Thakur, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-(II), Solan in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.8-S/2 of 2000. The claimant preferred the petition out of which this appeal arises, on the allegations that on 29.9.1999 at about 1.45 P.M. at Daseranwala, a crane, which was being driven rashly, negligently and in a high speed, was involved in an accident and hit the mule belonging to the claimant-respondent which received grievous injuries and died on the spot. The 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 claimant pleaded for an award sufficient to replace the animal. The petition was resisted on a number of grounds. On the settled issues, the learned trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- as the cost of the mule which had sustained grievous injuries. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that the statutory liability of the Insurance Company was restricted to Rs.6,000/- for damage to property and Rs.35,000/- could not be awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. This submission cannot be accepted. The Insurance Policy has not been brought on the record of the case. It is not sufficient to allege that the liability is limited. Ex.DX is copy of the Insurance Certificate and there is no condition therein that the liability is limited to a particular amount. There is no explanation on the record as to why the Insurance Company never proved the Policy on the record of the case. The only presumption can be that if such a policy had been produced, it would have gone against the Company. Second contention was that the driver did not possess valid driving licence. On this issue settled as issue No.4 the learned Court holds that the licence was produced and the driver was competent to drive a HGV vehicle. No evidence has been led by the Insurance Company that the driver did not possess any valid licence. Infact, the learned trial Court, 3 noticed and rightly so that all the issues on the contentions raised by the Insurance Company, no witness or document has been produced on the record of the case except that on 30.4.2001, counsel for respondent No.3 only tendered in evidence Ex.DX which is a Certificate of Insurance and closed the evidence on behalf of the respondent. Mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not constitute proof of a fact. Why and under what circumstances evidence was not led has not been explained. It is well settled that raising a plea is not proof of a fact by positive evidence. I do not find any ground to interfere in this appeal. In the facts and circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. November 18, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.