MUNEEM SINGH Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.K. Porwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Anita Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Insurance Company. No one appeared for respondents No.1 and 2 at the time of arguments.

(2.) THIS F.A.F.O. has been filed by the motor vehicle/ tractor owner against that part of the award dated 27.08.2004 given by M.A.C.T./ A.D.J. Court No.1, Etawah in M.A.C. Petition No.307 of 1994 through which Oriental Insurance Company, which was opposite party No.2 in the claim petition had been permitted to recover the awarded amount of Rs.50,000/- from the appellant after paying the same to the claimant.

(3.) LEARNED standing counsel placed on record communication receipt by him on 14/17.03.2012 from the office of Assistant Departmental Transport Adhikari (Administration), Etawah stating therein the said licence was issued on 09.07.1992 and it was valid until 31.08.2012 (accident took place on 16.05.1994). Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit to the application under Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. However in the counter affidavit sworn on 21.12.2011 the correctness of the driving licence has not been questioned. Learned counsel for Insurance Company, respondent No.3 has cited an authority of Supreme Court reported in Haryana State Industrial Vs. M/s Manufacturing Co., AIR 2008 SC 56 in which it has been held that a party cannot be permitted to adduce additional evidence to fill up a lacuna in the evidence. Under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b), C.P.C., a party is entitled to produce additional evidence if "the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause". Moreover, in proceedings under Sections 166, 168 and 169, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, technical principles of C.P.C. do not apply with full force. The correctness of the driving licence has been got verified by the Court from learned standing counsel.