The court's decision emphasized the importance of allowing relevant evidence, even if not initially produced, to ensure complete justice.

As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :

1. Being aggrieved with the award dated 20th of November 1999, passed in Claim Case No.35/93 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, the appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The facts briefly stated are as under:

The appellants/claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- on account of death of deceased Mohan Lodhi in the motor accident, which took place on 10.02.1993. The appellants/claimants pleaded that the accident occurred on accow1tofrash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Tata Truck, Chassis No.MH-12/0645 by its driver, which dashed the deceased, who was a pedestrian.

Respondents No.1 & 2 i.e. owner and driver of the offending vehicle' did not file their written statements and remained ex-parte.

Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its written statement denying the contentions of the appellants/claimants. They admitted that the Cover Note No.60193 relates to Policy No. 31121400-67900, by which, the concerned vehicle of the policy was insured from 01.01.93 to 31.12.93. However, they denied that the said policy is related to the present vehicle.

The claimants examined Jhaduram (AW-l), Ved Ram (AW-2), Santosh Kumar (AW-3) and Kamin Bai (AW-4) in support of their claim petition, whereas, the insurer did not examine any witness in rebuttal.

The learned Claims Tribunal recorded the finding that the claimants could not prove that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. In fact, the Tribunal held that the identity of the vehicle was not established by the claimants so as to fasten the liability on the owner, driver or the insurer of the vehicle. Therefore, the claim petition filed by appellants was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal.

During the pendency of this appeal, the appellants/claimants filed an application (I.A./No.01/2008) under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of additional evidence (A copy of the First Information Report dated 10.02.93 and A copy of the seizure memo dated 11.2.93).

3. Shri Sudeep Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, while arguing on I.A. No.0l/2008, submitted that the copies of the First Information Report and the seizure memo were not filed by the appellants or by any other party before the Tribunal. He argued that the contents of the First Information Report and the seizure memo would show that the present vehicle was involved in the accident and the same was seized by the Police during the course of investigation. He also argued that these documents were not available with the appellants. The appellants made all efforts with due diligence to get these documents, but they could not get it in time. However, after passing of the award on 20th of November 1999, they could get the copies of these documents, therefore, the same have been filed in this appeal. He prayed for taking these documents on record as additional evidence.

4. On the other hand, Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

5. The provisions of Order XLI of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been made applicable mutatis mutandis to the appeals preferred to the High Court u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by virtue of sub-rule (3) of Rule 242 of the M.P.(C.G.) Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. Rule 27 of Order XLI provides for production of additional evidence in Appellate Court in the following circumstances :

"(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or

(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his know