JUDGMENT
G.R. Majithia, J.
1. This judgment will dispsoe F. A. O. Nos. 1112 and 1113 of 1987. M/s Sewak Tourist Bus Service, a Partnership concern and its partner Ranjit Singh have come up in appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dated July 27, 1989.
2. There is no dispute about the facts. The appellants have not disputed the accident or the manner in which it has taken place. They have also not questioned the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. Their learned counsel has only made two submissions, namely, (i) the Tribunal ought to have held that the entire compensation amount was payable by the Insurance Company, (ii) alternatively the Insurance Company admitted its liability to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the written statement. Admission in the pleadings amount to estoppel and the Tribunal ought to have held that the Insurance Company is liable to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the liability which was admitted in the written statement.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the Insurance policy was not proved according to law. The counsel for the Insurance Company tendered a duplicate copy of the Insurance Policy and it was admitted into evidence. Although the objection to the mode of proof was raised at the trial but the Tribunal after rejecting it admitted the document in evidence. In the circumstances of the case, I do not think that this objection is available to the owners of the vehicle. The original policy was with them and in order to sustain the plea that the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited, they ought to have produced and proved it.
4. On the second point, there is mediocre substance in it. The Insurance Company in its written statement admitted that the illfated vehicle was insured with it and the Insurance Policy covers a third party risk up the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- vide policy No. 00491/86. The Insurance Company moved an application to amend the written statement to introduce the plea that under Section 95 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, its maximum liability is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- only. The application for amendment of the written statement was allowed by the Tribunal on May 29, 1987 and an additional issue was framed to the effect that : –
“Whether liability of the Insurance Company under the policy of insurance covering the bus involved in accident is upto Rs. 50,000/- only ? O.P.R.”.
5. After the amendment was allowed, the duplicate copy of the Insurance Policy was allowed to be produced on record. The amended written statement was not filed. Order 6, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure envisages that if the amended pleadings are not riled within 15 days from the date of the order allowing the amendment the original pleadings will be deemed to be the pleadings in the Us. The amended written satement having not been filed even after obtaining the orders for doing so, the unamended written statement, will be treated to be the written statement on the file In the unamended written statement, the Insurance Company has specifically admitted that its liability for third party risk is upto the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Admission made in the pleadings are binding on the parties unless they are allowed to be withdrawn or explained. In the instant case opportunity to withdraw the admission was allowed but it was not availed. Admission made by a party operates as estoppel against it unless it is withdrawn or explained. In the circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the liability of the Insurance Company vis-a-vis third party risk is Rs. 1,50,000/- and not Rs. 50,000/- as is sought to be urged.
6. The award of the Tribunal is maintained except to the extent it has held that the liability of the Insurance Company qua the third party risk is limited only to Rs. 50,000/- and resultantly, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The award of the Tribunal is modified to this extent only. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.