SATYENDRAKUMAR A PATEL Vs. ABDULLATIF AHMEDHUSAIN SHEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant original opponent No. 1 " owner has filed this appeal challenging the award made by the claims tribunal (Aux.) Ahmedabad City in MACP No. 467 of 1988 dated 10th October, 1997 wherein the claims tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle by awarding compensation of Rs. 35082. 00 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realization and dismissed the claim petition against opponent no. 3 Insurance Company.

(2.) ALONG with the appeal, appellant also filed civil application no. 6936 of 1998 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to produce additional evidence. Civil Application No. 6937 of 1998 has also been filed by the appellant for stay.

(3.) IN Civil Application No. 6936 of 1998 for production of additional evidence, applicant has submitted that it had come to the knowledge of the appellant applicant that the insurance company has issued circular / notification to the effect that the standard Motor Cycle Comprehensive Policy should cover liability of pillion passengers treating them as occupants in the motor cycle and provide indemnity to such persons who are not carried for hire or reward. According to the applicant appellant, inspite of exercising due diligence, the applicant could not produce the copy of the circular dated 2. 6. 1986 issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee Bombay before the trial Court. It was contended by the applicant that the copy of the said document is traced out and came in the custody of the applicant recently. Said document is very much relevant for deciding the controversy in the subject appeal. Therefore, based upon the aforesaid contentions, applicant has prayed for permitting him to produce the said document as additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.