G.C. Bharuka, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurer against the judgment dated 4.9.1991 passed by the Claims Tribunal, Siwan, in claim case No. 10 of 1988: 63 of 1991.
2. It appears that the husband of the respondent No. 1, namely, late Bhagwan Ram died in an accident of a jeep bearing No. BED 3789 on 19.10.1988. Admittedly, this vehicle was insured with the appellant. After due enquiry, Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the quantum of compensation but the grievance is that so far' as the appellant insurance company is concerned, it cannot be made liable to pay beyond Rs. 15,000/-which is the minimum statutory liability against third party under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only).
4. The claimant and the owner of the vehicle have also appeared through their counsel. It has been submitted on their behalf that no such objection as above was taken before the Claims Tribunal by the insurance company and, therefore, the same cannot be entertained in this appeal for the first time.
5. It is a matter of record that during the proceeding before the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle had filed the certificate of insurance granted by the appellant which was marked as 'A'. This certificate on the face of it does not show that the liability was restricted only to the minimum prescribed under the Act. The insurer though had filed its objection before the Tribunal and was well represented through its counsel, it had neither filed the policy of insurance nor had taken the stand that its liability was restricted only to Rs. 15,000/-. All the parties before the Tribunal had proceeded on the basis that the liability of the insurer was comprehensive in nature.
6. Even before this Court despite grant of opportunities the appellant has failed to produce either the original insurance policy or any carbon copy thereof. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today wherein a photostat copy of a policy purported to be true copy of the original has been produced. I am afraid that such documents cannot at all inspire any confidence. No explanation has been given as to why the original or its carbon copy has not been produced. I am constrained to believe that in fact the insurer is either intentionally suppressing the original or the insurance policy was never drawn.
7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant cannot be allowed to raise the aforesaid plea for the first time before this Court which will be bound to be detrimental to the interest of the claimant. Even the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore 1988 ACJ 270 (SC), Delhi High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Darshan Singh 1992 ACJ 533 (Delhi) and also this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gulam Rasool 1993 ACJ 1132 (Patna) and in the case of Runnu Sarkar v. Dilip Kr. Saha M.A. No. 77 of 1992 (R); decided on 1.2.1994, have clearly held that for the failure on the part of the insurance company to produce the insurance policy an adverse inference has to be drawn against it.
For the reasons aforesaid the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit with costs assessed at Rs. 500/- to be paid to the claimant-respondent No. 1 within one month from today under a crossed bank draft to be addressed to her through Registered Cover with A.D.