Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.
1. In this appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Secunderabad, dated October 8,1986 made in O.P. No. 31 of 1984, the only point which is pressed before me is that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to only Rs. 50,000/-, the policy being the Act policy and that the Tribunal erred in making the insurance company liable for the entire amount of compensation awarded to the claimants.
2.To appreciate the contention raised before me it is necessary to refer to the facts giving rise to this appeal. One Satish Prem Vardhan, hereinafter referred to as late Mr. Vardhan, was going on a motor cycle bearing No. ADB 9753 near Grammar School, Abid Road, Hyderabad on 29-8-1983 at 10-50 A.M. A bus bearing No. AAT 9502, which was coming from opposite direction and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the above said motor cycle and caused injuries to the said Vardhan and the pillion rider and that the said Vardhan succumbed to the injuries on the very same night in Osmania General Hospital where he was admitted immediately after the accident. The wife and children of late Mr.Vardhan laid a claim for Rs. 3,50,000/-. The Tribunal, however, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimants together with interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of the petition till payment and proportionate costs.
3. In the counter filed by the Insurance Company it is denied that the bus involved in the accident was insured with their Insurance Company or that the 1st respondent was the owner of the said bus. The other defences raised by the Insurance Company were ignored by the Tribunal as being beyond the scope of Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. After considering the evidence placed on record by both sides, as already stated above, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- to respondents 1 to 6 herein. As there was no issue with regard to the extent of the liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal did not consider the question of liability. The relevant issue framed and decided by the Tribunal was, 'Whether the bus No. AAT 9502 was not insured with the 2nd respondent at the relevant time ?' On that issue the Tribunal recorded the finding that the appellant-Insurance Company was the insurer of the above said vehicle. The Tribunal also noted, at the end of the discussion under the above said issue, that the Insurance Company (2nd respondent therein) filed a copy of the policy, at the conclusion of the trial, which was marked as Ex.C. 1 and which shows that the 2nd respondent has given up the above plea and admitted that the bus was insured with it at the relevant time. The Tribunal, however, noted in para 49 of the judgment that there was no plea regarding the limit of the liability being Rs. 50,000/-. It was further observed by the Tribunal in that very same paragraph that he (the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal) had also pointed out this aspect in the order dated 23-8-1986 made in I.A.No.863 of 1986 and that inspite of that no steps were taken to amend the pleadings.
4. Sri Hanumayya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company, however, placed before me a copy of the counter filed by the Insurance Company in the lower Tribunal. Para 11 of the said counter reads as follows:
'11. The maximum liability of this respondent is limited to an extent as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act only in case all the allegations set up are proved.'
Referring to the above said para the learned counsel submits that there is express contention in the counter regarding the limit of the liability of the insurance company. I am afraid, I cannot accept his contention. The said plea, taken in the counter, is a general plea and it cannot be read in isolation. Para 12 which immediately follows the para quoted above reads as follows:
' 12. This respondent submits as stated above he is not aware as to whether the private but involved in the alleged accident was insured with the respondent. This respondent reserves the right to file additional counter as and when the details of accident and full particulars of insurance' are made known and verified by this respondent.'
Thus, if paras 11 and 12, quoted above, are read together, it becomes clear that at the time the counter was filed the respondent-Insurance company was not even sure whether the bus involved in the accident was insured with the company or not, and it reserved its right to file an additional counter. When the appellant-insurance company came to know that the said bus was insured, it __ ought to have filed an additional counter the right to file which was specifically reserved by it. It failed to do so. Even when the Tribunal pointed out the same in the order mentioned in para 49 of its judgment, neither the pleadings were amended nor an additional counter was filed.
5. It may be pointed out that admittedly the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings in question. The provision of Order VIII Rule 4 read with Order VI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure make it obligatory on the defendant to state the plea of limit of liability of Rs. 50,000/- in clear terms. However, Sri Hanumayya, the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Jugal Kishore, : [1988]2SCR910 ., contends that filing of the policy was enough for the insurance company to satisfy that the liability of the insurance company was limited. In that judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court deprecated the attitude of the Insurance Company in not filing a copy of the insurance policy. The Supreme Court pointed out that the claimants for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act would not be possessed of either the policy or a copy thereof and that it was the duty of the party which was in possession of the document to produce the same or a copy thereof and that this duty was greater in the case of instrumentalities of the State, such as appellant insurance company. It was emphasised that in all cases where the Insurance Company concerned intended to take a defence in a claim petition that its liability was not in excess of the statutory liability it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence. In my view this judgment does not lay down that in the absence of any specific pleading regarding limit 10 of liability of the insurance company, by mere filing of the policy the liability should be limited. On the contrary it is settled law that no amount of evidence can be looked into in the absence of a plea, to support a contention. In this view of the matter, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel Sri Hanumayya that the liability of the insurance company should be limited to Rs. 50,000/-as the same was evident from the policy.
6. In the result, I find no merit in the C.M.A. It is accordingly dismissed, but having regard to the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.