JUDGMENT
P.S. Patankar, J.
1. The appellant herein is the Insurance Company who was opponent No. 3 in the Claim Petition. Respondent No. 1 was the applicant. Respondent No. 2 was opponent No. 4, the driver of the vehicle, and Respondent No. 3 was opponent No. 2, the owner of the vehicle.
2. On 9th December, 1980, the Respondent No. 1, aged about 36 who was working as Secondary School Teacher and earning about Rs.77l/- per month, was proceeding on foot towards Silver Jubilee High School. At that time, respondent No. 2 was driving the motor cycle bearing No. MTZ 6713. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that respondent Noj2 came from behind on the motor cycle in a fast speed. He was rash and negligent in driving the same and dashed against him causing fracture to his right thigh and other injuries. Respondent No. l was required to be admitted as indoor patient from 21st December, 1980 to 21st February, 1981. This gave rise to the claim petition by respondent No. l who claimed compensation of Rs. 34,065/-.
3. The material contentions for our purpose are these raised by the appellant and respondent NoJ3. Respondent No. 3 contended that it has given the said motor cycle to M/s. Balaji Automobiles which was run by one Salim S. Shaikh for carrying out repairs on 8th December, 1981. It was not handed over to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 was the motor mechanic employed by the said Salim Shaikh who had taken out the said motor cycle at the relevant time for the purpose of repairing and testing the same. The appellant inter alia contended that respondent No. l was driving the vehicle without any valid driving licence.
4. The learned Member of the Tribunal held that the letter at Exhibit 61 from M/s. Balaji Automobiles dated 20th December, 1980 showed that the vehicle was given for repairs and servicing and respondent No. l was working as a mechanic. He had sufficient experience and well versed in driving. He had taken out the said motor cycle for the purpose of testing and the insurance company cannot raise such an objection. Hence, the claim raised by the appellant came to be rejected. Similarly, various other contentions raised on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3 were also rejected and it was held that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to get compensation of Rs. 10,550/- from the appellant and respondents 2 and 3.
5. The learned Advocate for the appellant contended that the reasoning given by the Court below is erroneous and it has erred in rejecting the contention raised by the appellant in that respect. He contended that the insurance company was not liable in view of conditions of insurance as there was no valid driving licence with respondent No. l at the relevant time. If the insurance company would have produced the policy document on record and pointed out that there existed such a condition that the vehicle shall not be driven by person who shall not hold a valid driving licence and the insurance company shall not be liable in that event the position would have been different. However, in the present case, the insurance policy document has been withheld by the appellant. It is not produced on record. At exhibit 60 only certificate of insurance has been produced. In view of Section 93(b) and Section 95(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, a certificate of insurance is different from a policy document. It was not sufficient to produce on record merely the certificate of insurance is different from a policy document. It was not sufficient to produce on record merely the certificate of insurance. The policy document would have indicated the different clauses and whether there was breach of a specified condition of the policy as contemplated by Section 96(2)(b)(ii) which would have excluded liability of the insurer. The policy document ought to have been produced. Since it is not produced, it is not possible to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellant.
6. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.