A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.

Appellant was the insurer of bus bearing registration No.KA 02 9900. The said bus has met with an accident on 7-5-2000, on account of which, one Raja alias Raju having sustained fatal injuries, has later succumbed. His legal representatives, respondents 3 to 7 herein, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘‘the Act’) against the appellant in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal V, Bangalore City (for short, ‘Tribunal’), claiming compensation. The Tribunal considering the said claim petition along with another claim petition, filed by another injured person in the said accident, by its common judgment and separate award, has awarded in favour of the L.Rs of Raja alias Raju, Rs.3,61.,400/- with interest at 8% per annum, fastening the liability to pay, on the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.

2. Heard Sri R. Jaiprakash, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sriyuths Rajanna and Sripad V. Shastry, learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 7. We also perused the record maintained, by the Tribunal.

3. Sri R. Jaiprakash, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the vehicle involved in the accident is a public service vehicle, the deceased admittedly was a cleaner in the vehicle and hence the appellant was not required to cover the risk of a cleaner under Section 147 of the Act. Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramashray Singh v New India Assurance Company Limited and Others AIR 2003 SC 2877 (2003)10 SCC 664 2003-III-LLJ-740 (SC), to contend that the risk of the cleaner working in a public service vehicle cannot be, held to have been covered under the policy. Learned Counsel contended that the Tribunal without examining the relevant provisions, has illegally fastened the liability on the appellant. Learned Counsel submitted that, in pursuance of the suo motu order passed by this Court on 27-6-2006, the appellant has produced the policy issued in respect of the said vehicle covering the period from 24-12-1991 to 23-12-2000, from the perusal of which, it is clear that the risk of a person employed as a cleaner is not covered.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 7 contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the cover note issued by the appellant in respect of the vehicle in question, the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the appellant. Learned Counsel contended that the appellant having not produced the insurance policy in respect of the vehicle in question before the Tribunal, it is not entitled to produce the same in the appeal. Learned Counsel contended that the appellant has not satisfied the mandatory requirements of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and hence the policy produced by the appellant should not be considered. Learned Counsel further contended, by relying upon the decision of the learned Single Judge passed in MFA No. 1266 of 2004, disposed on 5-1-2006, in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Bangalore v Ananda and Another 2006(3) Kar. L.J. 314, that the liability of a cleaner would get included in the coverage of two more workman and hence the appellant-insurer is liable to pay compensation.

5. Considering the rival contentions and the record of the case, the points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the policy produced by the appellant in this appeal can be received on record and considered for deciding the appeal?

2. Whether the risk of a person employed as a cleaner in a public service vehicle is covered under the policy?

3. Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the appellant?

6. Regarding Point No. 1.—With regard to the production of additional evidence in the Appellate Court, sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 of the CPC states that, the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional e