- (1.) MR . Bhowmick, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged only two points in support of his appeal; firstly that the liability of the appellant being statutory was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/ - and, therefore, the appellant should not have been burdened by any higher liability to pay the awarded amount and secondly, that the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the accident did not have any valid driving licence.
(2.) IN so far as the second ground is concerned, this has not at all been raised in the memo of appeal. In so far as the first ground is concerned, that was indeed raised as Ground No. (x) which reads thus : - - "(x) For that the statutory liability to pay compensation is to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/ - by the appellant and therefore, when the appellant has been ordered to pay compensation with interest on Rs. 2,88,028,80 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction." Apart from the fact that the aforesaid averments are vague and evasive, what we find is that the appellant -Insurance Company did not lead and evidence during the course of the trial nor it did produce the insurance policy in question nor it did take any steps to establish or prove before the Tribunal that in fact the liability was restricted to the statutory limit and, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay any amount higher than that. If an Insurance Company pleads that its liability is restricted to statutory limits it is the duty of the Insurance Company to establish this fact by production of the insurance policy and by leading evidence to show that it had received premium only covering the statutory liability and that higher premium was not paid and hence the company was not liable to pay higher amount.
(3.) AS far as the issue relating to driving licence is concerned neither is there any pleading nor was any evidence led on this by the company nor was this fact proved in any manner.;