( 1 ) TWO trucks-nos. DLG-9471 and HRG 8750 were involved in an accident on 16. 6. 1973. One Lekh Raj Singh, 30, a class IV employee in NCERT, boarding in truck No. HRG-8750 was killed in the process. Appellants, (his LRs) filed claim suit No. 25/1979 claiming compensation of Rs. 1. 20 lacs. But MACT awarded only Rs. 43,200. 00 compensation to them with 6% interest vide award dated 19. 1. 1980 after determining dependency of the deceased at Rs. 250. 00 per month and applying a multiplier of 16 to it. The Tribunal also found it to be a case of composite negligence and apportioned liability of respondents 1-3 jointly and severally at 75% and that of respondent 4 and 5 at 25%. No liability was fastened on respondent No. 6 (the Insurer of truck No. HRG 8750) for being untraceable perhaps.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 (Insurer) of other truck No. DLG 9471 took (FAO 234/1980) against this award on various grounds and appellants (claimants) also filed cross-objections in this. The Insurer s appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 2. 3. 1987, but appellant s cross-objections were allowed enhancing compensation to Rs. 90,000. 00 with 9% interest, of this (Rs. 67. 500. 00 with interest) 75% of the liability fixed on respondents 1-3 was made payable by insurer-respondent No. 3 ).

( 3 ) APPELLANTS still feel dissatisfied and have filed this appeal claimants compensation of Rs. 4 lacs or so. For this they have also filed C. M. 1454/2000 under Order 41 Rule 33 read with Section 151civil Procedure Code for consideration of a document dated 16. 5. 2000 containing salary details of the deceased which he would have earned till his superannuation on 12. 1. 2003. Based on this, it is claimed that deceased would have drawn a basic monthly salary of Rs. 3440 and alongwith allowances would have earned a gross income of Rs. 5673. 00 per month. Reliance in this regard in placed on Supreme Court judgment in Manjushri Raha, 1977 Ad 134, and a judgment of this court in Satyawati Pathak in Heri Ram, 1993 AC 424, to urge that future prospect of increased earnings of the deceased was liable to be taken in account for assessing his gross income.

( 4 ) APPELLANT s further case is that both MACT and First Appellate Court had fallen in error by apportioning the liability of 75% on respondents 1^3 and 25% on respondents No. 4 and 5 when no such apportionment was permissible in the case of composite negligence which now after 28 years or so. Nor could the judgments impugned be faulted on this count because neither court had any such material before it.

( 5 ) IT is not the right of a party to lead additional evidence at his choice and convenience. He has to follow the rules of the game which regulate it lest it becomes an unending process. These are embodied in Order 13 Rule 2 in case of a suit and Order 41 Rule 27 for appeal, Both provisions lay down requirements and conditions for this and it is for the party to satisfy the same. If he fails the court would not be competent to call for fresh evidence. One of the foremost conditions to be satisfied is that he could hot adduce the requisite evidence despite best efforts and due diligence. Moreover, the party affected by it should have an opportunity to rebut it.

( 6 ) NONE of these conditions exist in the case in hand. It is not appellant s case that future salary details of the deceased were beyond their reach and knowledge and could not be procured by them despite their all out efforts and exercise of due diligence during trial before MACT or First Appellate Court. In fact they had not indicated any worthwhile reason for their eviction. It is, therefore, apparent that they had taken it easy and had now woken up after decades on a second thought. Their application is also evasive and in generalised terms and offers no justification for the belated action.

( 7 ) MOREOVER, it is not for this court in this LPA to allow appellants additional evidence to enable them to supplement their factual data. Such an indulge