NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. SOMA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, all the three appeals are being disposed of together.

(2.) Mrs. Devyani Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant -Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award dated 11th October, 1993 passed in three claim petitions (being MAC Petition No. 10 -NL/2 of 1992, MAC Petition No. 9 -NL/2 of 1992 and MAC Petition No. 12 -NL/2 of 1992) whereby the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -ll, Solan camp at Nalagarh has passed three Awards in favour of the claimants in these three claim petitions, who are respondents in these three appeals filed by the aforesiad Insurer. The judgment and awards have been assailed on two grounds by the appellant in these three appeals.

(3.) According to Mrs. Sharma, the impugned judgment and awards suffer on account of the fact that Charan Singh, who was alleged to be driving the vehicle at the time of the accident had during the course of an in -house Investigation by the appellant stated that he was not driving the vehicle in question and that the vehicle in fact was being driven by one Babla son of Sarvan Singh. In support of this contention, Mrs. Sharma submits that the appellant -Insurer has filed CMP No. 110 of. 1994 in this Court under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leading additional evidence. The appellant has also filed CMP No. 111 of 1994 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement to the aforesaid effect. Very frankly and fairly Mrs. Sharma has submitted that the fate of the aforesaid submission would depend upon on the result of the aforesaid two CMPs because unless and until this Court permits the appellant to adduce additional evidence, after permitting the appellant to amend the written statement to the aforesaid effect about Charan Singh not driving the vehicle and Babla driving the vehicle, the aforesaid fact cannot be allowed to be brought on record.