BAHARTIN BAI Vs. SUBHASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS /claimants filed application under section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, claiming compensation on account of death of Pakla Ram Kawat, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants 2,3,4 & 5. The claim petition was filed on the allegation that when Pakla Ram Kawat was going towards village Kudekala from village Chuhkimar on his bicycle a truck MKS 9115 which was driven by respondent No.1 Subhash dashed against him which has resulted in the death of Pakla Ram Kawat. The incident was reported to the police -station on 14.3.1987 p.m. The police registered an offence against the respondent No.1 under sections 279 & 304 - A of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent No.1 was proceeded ex -parte. Thereafter respondent Nos. 2 & 3 filed their replies who have said to be owner and Insurance Company respectively of truck No. MKS 9115.

(2.) THE trial Court has not accepted their written statements and rejected the same with the further direction that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would file their reply afresh. However, after giving a fresh opportunity the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to file their written statement and thereafter Court proceeded ex -parte against them. Applicant/appellants have examined 3 witnesses; P. W.1 Bahartinbai, P.W. 2 -Maganlal and PW 3 - - Ramkumar. It appears that unfortunately none of the witnesses examined by the applicants have stated anything about the truck involved in the accident; they have failed to give number of the vehicle involved in the accident. Further, none of the witnesses have stated as to who owned the truck; whether the truck was insured by any Insurance Company; muchless the name of the Insurance Company. Under these circumstances, the trial Court rejected the claim of the applicants. On 3.11.1992, counsel for the appellants has filed application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for taking additional evidence in the matter. The application contends that the documents -certified copies of the order -sheets of the criminal Court and challan papers are to be taken on record. I find that no such documents are produced along with the application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC. There is no affidavit in support of the application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC.