A party cannot be permitted to adduce additional evidence for the purpose of filling up lacuna in his case.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and Award dated 6th February, 1995 passed by Sri N. K. Saha, learned Judge, Bench No. X and acting as Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M. A. C. No. 167/87, whereby and whereunder claimpetition filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 was allowed. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. On 24. 10. 86 at about 11-00 a. m. in the morning Sunil Das, a self-employed person was riding his bicycle along Meyo Road from east to west. A private Bus bearing No. WBS 5007 was proceeding along the said road. The said bus was allegedly driven negligently and dashed with the cycle from behind, as a result whereof the aforementioned Shri Das sustained serious bodily injuries and was removed to S. S. K. M. hospital. He was, however, discharged after first aid and had been to his house at Jadavpur, but in the afternoon, he was started vomiting blood and having been refused admission at the S. S. K. M. Hospital, he was taken to and admitted in Chittaranjan Medical College Hospital but he died on the following day. It also stands admitted that in relation to the aforementioned incident. First Information Report was lodged on 25. 12. 8 at 3-15 P. M. On the basis of the said First Information Report, a Motor Crime Register was also registered. However, it appears that therein wrongly in stead and place of Bus No. WBS 5007, WBS 5005, was mentioned.

( 2 ) BEFORE the learned Tribunal below, four witnesses were examined. P. W. 1, Shikha Das was the wife of the deceased. She stated that her husband had been hit by a private Bus bearing No. WBS 5007. She also stated that her husband was aged about 40 years and he used to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month towards family expenses and he was a hail and hearty. She was not cross-examined by the appellant or by the Insurer. P. W. 2, Dilip Kumar Das is an eye-witness. He categorically stated the mode and manner of the occurrence of the said accident. He also gave out the number of bus as also the route in which it was being plied. He was also not cross-examined. The learned Tribunal, however, appears to have put certain questions to him. P. W. 3, proved the bed head ticket to show that Sunil Das died on 25th December, 1986 at 3-p. m. who had been admitted in the hospital at 4-00 p. m. on the previous day. P. W. 4 is also one of the witnesses who had heard about the accident and the manner in which the same took place from the deceased himself. According to the said witness, the deceased told him that the number of the bus was WBS 5007 and the said was in route No. 47a. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 but apart from giving certain suggestions, no other question was put to him. The evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants, therefore, went wholly-unrebutted and thus the said statement must be held to be correct.

( 3 ) THE learned Tribunal below in view of the aforementioned materials on record, inter alia, held that the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- by way of compensation. He further granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum. However, keeping in view the nature of the insurance policy, it was directed that the Insurer shall be liable to pay to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and the balance Rs. 75,000/- would be payable by the appellant.

( 4 ) MR. Samanta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that from a comparison of the documents which have been placed on record, it would appear that in the Crime Control Report, number of bus has been mentioned as WBS 5005 and from the M. C. R. it would appear that there had been some interpulation in so far as the figure 7' has been made 5'. The learned counsel place before us an application for adduction of additional evidence, inter alia, on two grounds, namely, (1) that the driver in question who was prosecuted for commission of an offence under sections 279, 337 and 304a of the Indian Penal Code, had