(1.) By present appeal, the insurance company has assailed the award dated 31st August, 1989 on the ground that the leaned Tribunal wrongly held the liability of the insurance company as unlimited.
(2.) The Tribunal on this issue had observed as under:- "18. Plea of respondent No.3/Insurance Company, in this case, had been that their liability was limited to the extent provided under section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On the point, respondents examined S.K. Gupta, Assistant Oriental Insurance Company who proved the copies of insurance policy as Exs. R1 & R2. Neither Ex. R1 nor Ex.R2 specify the extent of limited liability nor the amount of limited liability can be found out either from the documents relied upon by the respondents or from the written statement. Subsequent to the examination of R2 3W1 on 30.3.89, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company placed on record, a notice having been sent to the insured in June, 1989 for production of the original insurance policy before the FAO No.33/1990 Page No.1 of 7 Insurance Company to enable them to take steps for production of the same in the Court but before tendering this notice in July, 1989 by moving an application u/s 151 C.P.C., the evidence on behalf of respondents 2 & 3 had already been closed by Shri J.L. Vason on 30.3.1989. Hence the production of the copy of this notice as well as the documents Exs. R1 & R2 is of no consequence in the circumstances of the present case for the reasons aforesaid and held that in the absence of definite proof of limited liability to be adduced by the Insurance Company, their liability, in this case, has to be held unlimited."
(3.) It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the premium charged in this case was Rs.125/-, as per details given in the schedule of policy placed on record of the trial court. He submitted that no extra amount was paid by the insured to cover unlimited liability and the liability of appellant should have been held limited to Rs.50,000/-.