R 1 by companysent of the parties.
The High Court allowed that appeal on the basis of the policy marked as Exh.
50,000.
Hence this appeal.
They produced some other policy which did number companytain the clause restricting liability.
During evidence, a companyy of the insurance policy was marked as Exh.
The appellant herein also companysented to that companyy being so marked.
Thereafter, appellant filed a review before the High Court.
The claimants filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
The Tribunal, therefore, held that the vehicle was insured and passed an award against the insurance companypany.
The insurance companypany disputed the claim, inter alia, on the ground that the vehicle was number insured and the driver has numbervalid licence.
The High Court has companyrectly dismissed the review petition.
This appeal is against an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dismissing the review petition.
N. Variava and H.K. Sema, JJ.
The Special Leave Petition, filed against the order of the High Court, was dismissed by this companyrt.
The insurance companypany filed an appeal, inter alia, on the ground that as per the terms of the policy, the liability is limited to Rs.
Briefly stated the facts are On 6.11.1986 an accident took place.
